3 ms·
For reference, this is the mail that made the rounds (got it on musl ml). https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2024/03/24/17 https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl
by gcc145 3y ago
For reference, this is the mail that made the rounds (got it on musl ml).
https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2024/03/24/17 https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2024/03/24/17
The claims do seem to be sane at a glance, so it's too bad it's hard to take them seriously with the conspiracy-theory envelope it's wrapped in.
- microtherion 3y agoThe technical claims (that some optimizations could be better) appear to be correct. But the author seems to seriously lack interpersonal skills (trashes projects and people and then is surprised when he gets hostile responses), and the theory of deliberate sabotage is complete lunacy. What interest could Apple and Microsoft have in sabotaging their own compiler performance? (Intel would at least have a theoretical motive, but their compiler is quite good). As for gcc, the past has shown that the community is perfectly capable of forking the project if they perceive it to be neglected / mistreated. So the more likely explanation is that these optimizations are not that easy to implement correctly. If it were that easy, nothing stops the author from forking gcc and putting in the optimizations themselves.