3 ms·

For today's compilers they have something that compiles very slowly and they want the type safety checks because those are the ones the kernel developers use. T

For today's compilers they have something that compiles very slowly and they want the type safety checks because those are the ones the kernel developers use. That answers the original question doesn't it? If a new compiler extension was proposed and implemented and released in both llvm and gcc, some years after that they could drop support. But there would be no real imperative to drop support early since they will already have developed some code that works okay on those toolchains.

dataflow 2y ago
> For today's compilers they have something that compiles very slowly and they want the type safety checks because those are the ones the kernel developers use. That answers the original question doesn't it No, the point was for today's compilers they could have something that compiles quickly and does everything they want.
- starspangled 2y ago
  No they couldn't.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > No they couldn't. Elaborate? Why?
    - starspangled 2y ago
      I elaborated in my first reply. Today's compilers don't have such a feature.
      - dataflow 2y ago
        Nobody said they already do? I was saying they could implement it as an intrinsic.
        starspangled 2y ago
        They couldn't implement it in today's compilers unless they had a time machine. Today's compilers are already built and distributed and are what kernel developers use to compile their code today. I can't understand what you're finding so difficult about this.
        dataflow 2y ago
        > They couldn't implement it in today's compilers unless they had a time machine. Today's compilers are already built and distributed and are what kernel developers use to compile their code today. I can't understand what you're finding so difficult about this. I am saying they could have either implemented this in the past (and thus had it land by now) or implement it now (and have it land in e.g. GCC in the near future). Neither appears to be the case. I was not suggesting they have a time machine. I can't understand what you're finding so difficult about this.
        starspangled 2y ago
        You're asking why they don't do it and I gave you an answer. If something different had occurred prior to today then the situation today could be different. But it's not, hence the situation we find ourselves in which you asked about, which is what I was helping you to understand.
        dataflow 2y ago
        You realize that implementing something is not the same as using it, right? Just like how cooking something is not the same as eating it? If they implement it today, they can use it tomorrow. I was asking "why don't they just implement the whole darn thing in the compiler" and your response was... because they don't have a time machine?
        starspangled 2y ago
        No, my response to that is because they are kernel developers, not compiler developers. For the nth time. This really isn't rocket science. They need something that works in the kernel on today's compilers. The end.

dataflow 2y ago

> For today's compilers they have something that compiles very slowly and they want the type safety checks because those are the ones the kernel developers use. That answers the original question doesn't it No, the point was for today's compilers they could have something that compiles quickly and does everything they want.

starspangled 2y ago
No they couldn't.
- dataflow 2y ago
  > No they couldn't. Elaborate? Why?
  - starspangled 2y ago
    I elaborated in my first reply. Today's compilers don't have such a feature.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      Nobody said they already do? I was saying they could implement it as an intrinsic.
      - starspangled 2y ago
        They couldn't implement it in today's compilers unless they had a time machine. Today's compilers are already built and distributed and are what kernel developers use to compile their code today. I can't understand what you're finding so difficult about this.
        dataflow 2y ago
        > They couldn't implement it in today's compilers unless they had a time machine. Today's compilers are already built and distributed and are what kernel developers use to compile their code today. I can't understand what you're finding so difficult about this. I am saying they could have either implemented this in the past (and thus had it land by now) or implement it now (and have it land in e.g. GCC in the near future). Neither appears to be the case. I was not suggesting they have a time machine. I can't understand what you're finding so difficult about this.
        starspangled 2y ago
        You're asking why they don't do it and I gave you an answer. If something different had occurred prior to today then the situation today could be different. But it's not, hence the situation we find ourselves in which you asked about, which is what I was helping you to understand.
        dataflow 2y ago
        You realize that implementing something is not the same as using it, right? Just like how cooking something is not the same as eating it? If they implement it today, they can use it tomorrow. I was asking "why don't they just implement the whole darn thing in the compiler" and your response was... because they don't have a time machine?
        starspangled 2y ago
        No, my response to that is because they are kernel developers, not compiler developers. For the nth time. This really isn't rocket science. They need something that works in the kernel on today's compilers. The end.