3 ms·

I feel like you have poor reading comprehension. I literally said yes for simple cases it works. > https://kristerw.blogspot.com/2019/04/how-llvm-optimizes-geo

I feel like you have poor reading comprehension. I literally said yes for simple cases it works. > https://kristerw.blogspot.com/2019/04/how-llvm-optimizes-geometric-sums.html https://kristerw.blogspot.com/2019/04/how-llvm-optimizes-geo... Literally not a single loop on that page has a conditional in it. They're all the same stupid "polynomial" example. Hint: how often do you think people are trying to optimize loops that compute polynomials.... > I assure you they can do this efficiently. It's amazing you think your assurances mean anything. So let me assure you: I know exactly what I'm talking about. In the last month I landed basically SCEV in a production compiler. Except since our programs are real and not just goofy polynomial examples, my SCEV is actually an abstract interpreter.

saagarjha 2y ago
Uh, no? You literally said “that’s not possible” and then “that’s impossible”, then as I repeatedly showed you SCEV can actually be used to solve recurrences you retreated to “uh but you have to prove they’re monotonic” (which is easy) and now we’re at “lol your examples are simple and easy, not like the real world problems I, the compiler expert™, deal with every day”. Now, I will admit I don’t work on compilers like you do. But I have a great respect for them, as I work adjacent to them and have done so for each of the career switches I’ve done, and all of those have been far more different from each other than they were from your field. So I think you being smug about your day job doing like “halp my kernel no hit roofline bandwidth pls fix” support or whatever your employer has you do is actually incredibly rude and uncalled for. You can express your views like a normal person without assuming everyone else you talk to is an idiot with no knowledge of how compilers work. I honestly feel like you started down this path at the very start of this thread where assumed everyone here is like “wow AI cool” and when I actually tried to engage with you on something you tried to show you had some knowledge on and you continued to do this so now I’m really just upset because you were deeply unpleasant while I got nothing out of this.
- almostgotcaught 2y ago
  > then as I repeatedly showed you SCEV can actually be used to solve recurrences you retreated to “uh but you have to prove they’re monotonic” (which is easy) and now we’re at “lol your examples are simple and easy, not like the real world problems I, the compiler expert™, deal with every day”. friend we're not here now, we were here the entire time; in my literal first comment: > they're basically just iterating the loop arithmetic. then in my second response to you, in crystal clear, bulleted text: > 2. even if you did prove motonicity, it's the simplest category of loop body behavior. recall control flow. do you understand "if X then Y"? so again, i believe this is simply an issue of reading comprehension. > “halp my kernel no hit roofline bandwidth pls fix” support or whatever your employer has you do lol my guy - people that implement things like SCEV are not doing customer support. to wit: i know javed personally and my employer pays me to do literally the same exact things he does. but nice try trying to throw shade based on a weird misinformed notion of what compiler work is like. > I’m really just upset because you were deeply unpleasant while I got nothing out of this. well you could've gotten something out of it but you certainly worked really hard to insist on your misinformed notions so i guess i'm not surprised? but i'm definitely "sorry not sorry" because i definitely tried to explain something to you.

saagarjha 2y ago

Uh, no? You literally said “that’s not possible” and then “that’s impossible”, then as I repeatedly showed you SCEV can actually be used to solve recurrences you retreated to “uh but you have to prove they’re monotonic” (which is easy) and now we’re at “lol your examples are simple and easy, not like the real world problems I, the compiler expert™, deal with every day”. Now, I will admit I don’t work on compilers like you do. But I have a great respect for them, as I work adjacent to them and have done so for each of the career switches I’ve done, and all of those have been far more different from each other than they were from your field. So I think you being smug about your day job doing like “halp my kernel no hit roofline bandwidth pls fix” support or whatever your employer has you do is actually incredibly rude and uncalled for. You can express your views like a normal person without assuming everyone else you talk to is an idiot with no knowledge of how compilers work. I honestly feel like you started down this path at the very start of this thread where assumed everyone here is like “wow AI cool” and when I actually tried to engage with you on something you tried to show you had some knowledge on and you continued to do this so now I’m really just upset because you were deeply unpleasant while I got nothing out of this.

almostgotcaught 2y ago
> then as I repeatedly showed you SCEV can actually be used to solve recurrences you retreated to “uh but you have to prove they’re monotonic” (which is easy) and now we’re at “lol your examples are simple and easy, not like the real world problems I, the compiler expert™, deal with every day”. friend we're not here now, we were here the entire time; in my literal first comment: > they're basically just iterating the loop arithmetic. then in my second response to you, in crystal clear, bulleted text: > 2. even if you did prove motonicity, it's the simplest category of loop body behavior. recall control flow. do you understand "if X then Y"? so again, i believe this is simply an issue of reading comprehension. > “halp my kernel no hit roofline bandwidth pls fix” support or whatever your employer has you do lol my guy - people that implement things like SCEV are not doing customer support. to wit: i know javed personally and my employer pays me to do literally the same exact things he does. but nice try trying to throw shade based on a weird misinformed notion of what compiler work is like. > I’m really just upset because you were deeply unpleasant while I got nothing out of this. well you could've gotten something out of it but you certainly worked really hard to insist on your misinformed notions so i guess i'm not surprised? but i'm definitely "sorry not sorry" because i definitely tried to explain something to you.