Re: Why you are wrong [Was: On linux kernel packaging issue]
On Monday 10 Nov 2003 19:54, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> We refuse to accept it blindly because it's wrong. There have been
> cases when architecture-specific optimisations have made programs run
> slower (recently the instruction ordering for that via i686 chip
> comes to mind); GCC gets it wrong from time to time, and there's no
> reason to think it's currently right (since everybody who asserts it
> is has failed to provide anything but circumstancial evidence, and
> we all know that software sucks).
Don't all these arguments apply to architecture independent optimizations
also?
Incidentally, your standard of proof "There have been cases" is pretty weak, I
would say "there have been cases" where architectural optimizations have
increased performance.
Reply to: