Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 19:45:54 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <vb0kh2$12ukk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <2024Aug30.161204@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <memo.20240830164247.19028y@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vasruo$id3b$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Aug30.195831@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vat5ap$jthk$2@dont-email.me>
 <vaunhb$vckc$1@dont-email.me> <vautmu$vr5r$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Aug31.170347@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vavpnh$13tj0$2@dont-email.me>
 <vb00c2$150ia$1@dont-email.me>
 <505954890d8461c1f4082b1beecd453c@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 04:45:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="28ef5ad0dd1ecd59f07461256bb3307d";
	logging-data="1145492"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Z5lWPjS2tXJQtogX6kxT2PWUENpD4MMo="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8EV6GPPe+EQhO6Ztt6xUF73pVhw=
In-Reply-To: <505954890d8461c1f4082b1beecd453c@www.novabbs.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3874

On 8/31/2024 2:14 PM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 21:01:54 +0000, Bernd Linsel wrote:
> 
>> On 31.08.24 21:08, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Of course the fans of compilers that do what nobody means found a
>>>> counterargument long ago: They claim that compilers would need psychic
>>>> powers to know what you mean.
>>>
>>> Of course, different compiler writers have different opinions, but
>>> what you write is very close to a straw man argument.
>>>
>>> What compiler writers generlly agree upon is that specifications
>>> matter (either in the language standard or in documented behavior
>>> of the compiler).  Howewer, the concept of a  specification is
>>> something that you do not appear to understand, and maybe never
>>> will.
>>>
>>> An example: I work in the chemical industry.  If a pressure vessel
>>> is rated for 16 bar overpressure, we are not allowed to run it at
>>> 32 bar. If the supplier happens to have sold vessels which can
>>> actually withstand 32 bar, and then makes modifications which
>>> lower the actual pressure the vessel can withstand only 16 bar,
>>> the customer has no cause for complaint.
>>>
>>> As usual, the specification goes both ways:  The supplier
>>> guarantees the pressure rating, and the customer is obliged
>>> (by law, in this case) to never operate the vessel above its
>>> pressure rating.  Hence, safety valves rupture discs.
>>
>> You compare apples and peaches. Technical specifications for your
>> pressure vessel result from the physical abilities of the chosen
>> material, by keeping requirements as vessel border width, geometry etc.,
>> while compiler writers are free in their search for optimization tricks
>> that let them shine at SPEC benchmarks.
> 
> A pressure vessel may actually be able to contain 2× the pressure it
> will be able to contain 20 after 20 years of service due to stress
> and strain acting on the base materials.
> 
> Then there are 3 kinds of metals {grey, white, yellow} with different
> responses to stress and induced strain. There is no analogy in code--
> If there were perhaps we would have better code today...

Perhaps an analogy is code written in assembler, versus coed written in 
C versus code written in something like Ada or Rust.  Backing away now . 
.. . :-)


-- 
  - Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)