On 12/11/06, Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Statements like these can not be reasonably interpreted in any manner
> _except_ that of presuming the results:
>
> "I expect that you'll discover, if you actually do these tests, that
> this belief (that using arch specific compiler options lead to
> better performing SW) is fairly much nonsense."
>
> "...IMO a waste of time..."
>
> etc
>
> The correct objective response to claims w/o evidence is to request
> evidence, and to do everything we can to support it being properly
> gathered. Not to try to discourage the claimant from even trying by
> ganging up on them with multiple instances of Argument From Authority
> or variations of Ad Hominem attacks.
> (The validity of the claim has nothing to do with the skills or
> experience of the claimant or anyone else in the discussion. Only on
> the evidence.)
/shrugs, this is not debate class, I just happened to have barked up
this particular tree before, and decided to share my insights from it.
A lot of the misunderstanding here stems from legacy perceptions
about how cpus work, not to mention the entire architecture. If
somebody produces hard facts to the contrary, great, and I encourage
them to do so.
also, some people posting here, not necessarily me, are authority figures. :-)
merlin