1) a good deal of time is spent talking about the performance of libgcc builtins for operations that are implemented in hardware. this is silly, these are not going to be used.
2) performance of some builtins related to 128-bit integers does seem to be suboptimal (pretty hard to evaluate this since it mostly says "terrible code" without explanation, though alot of the stuff seems to be related to the register allocator/prologue)
3) Case 24 is allowed because the code itself has UB
4) Case 27 is wrong - cmov is implemented on x86 processors. given that he uses mtune instead of march, this is another error.
While there do seem to be a couple genuine issues pointed out here, most of this article seems like mean-spirited hogwash.
1) a good deal of time is spent talking about the performance of libgcc builtins for operations that are implemented in hardware. this is silly, these are not going to be used.
2) performance of some builtins related to 128-bit integers does seem to be suboptimal (pretty hard to evaluate this since it mostly says "terrible code" without explanation, though alot of the stuff seems to be related to the register allocator/prologue)
3) Case 24 is allowed because the code itself has UB
4) Case 27 is wrong - cmov is implemented on x86 processors. given that he uses mtune instead of march, this is another error.
While there do seem to be a couple genuine issues pointed out here, most of this article seems like mean-spirited hogwash.