[Sorry, I haven't proof-read this message. I'm somewhat ill and just too tired to do that.]

AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 10/1/09 wrote:
---------------------------

> I seriously doubt I said that. Are you sure?
> I recall I mentioned on several occasions
> that I don't dispute power and die overheads
> (have you seen those?).

I think its up to you to define what you meant, and its pointless to argue about how something you wrote can be interpreted. It is now obvious that I misunderstood you.

(More on this further down.)

> If this is the whole reason why you keep
> posting to "correct my misunderstanding",
> I'd like to see the post+sentence you're
> talking about.

I think here's pretty fundamental difference between us. I'm not interested whether what you wrote was badly worded or whether it is perfect English and I just read it wrong. That's why I won't be searching for and posting any quotes. The bottom line is that I misunderstood it, and the good thing is that it is now resolved. Bad thing is that it took this long.

> No, I don't believe I stated OoO is free.
> On the contrary, you should be able to
> find me saying that OoOE needs to be
> justified, or doesn't contribute to
> higher performance on certain class of
> workloads regardless of how well-designed
> and advanced it is.

Yes. If I recall correctly, part of the problem was that what you wrote seemed (to me that is) contradict your earlier statements.

>> I think I have stated before that your
>> facts aren't the problem, just the
>> meaning you assign to them (or more
>> accurately, the meaning you assign to
>> facts of other people).
>
>What are those?

For example that you seem to think that Jouni's arguments have no value unless he can point out some actual design that clearly demonstrates them.

The word "fact" may not be a best fit here, but I couldn't come up anything better.

>> I think the bound and must may be a
>> problem here. I'm just trying to say
>> that if there is a cost and you
>> choose not to pay it in anywhere
>> else, then you have to pay it in
>> clockspeed.
>
> No, no, this is a very... well,
> primitive look. As primitive as Jouni
> arguing that since 603ev clocked
> higher than original 603, then it
> must have had a longer pipeline.

Primitive, simplified, what's the difference?

> You don't need to wait until someday, mate.
> I'm asking you today: what's the logic
> behind fixing the power envelope ("not a
> nanowatt more", IIRC), but allowing the die
> space?

Well, for me that's closer to "everything else being equal" than requiring same die space. In a latter case you have to specify what is going to get removed and how that is going to affect other parameters (performance being pretty important in practise). You know, all those hard practical issues.

> Then I'd like to see what exactly you mean
> as requested above.

That's written below.

> If you read the thread indeed, how can it
> be unknown to you that I never disputed
> power and die costs etc.?

[KLIP]

> And it was brought up when I requested
> some clarity on the obvious contradiction
> in your own text (smth. about the waste
> in OoOE). Remember?

Actually, the statements were made by you (as I had understood them) and the point was to show you that you make contradictory arguments. Now it is obvious that I just understood one of your statements wrong, but back then I was totally lost.

> IIRC, your statement was something about
> theoretical standpoint. As such, it's an
> empty point as long as there's no
> theoretical substantiation -- and I
> haven't seen one.

I think there was lot's of theoretical support for Jouni's claim but a lack of practical one. But perhaps we just see that level of support differently, not the matter.

> No need to analyze or interpret, just take
> it for what it is.

Um, that way you're never going to understand anyone's point if its sufficiently different from yours. Language simply isn't precise tool and to expect "just take it for what it is" to yield complete results is lunatic.

> What ref. is it?

Nothing too important (= I don't feel like finding exact quote). Its just that your answered like you didn't understand why he brought up debating at all, although for me it was quite clear, something I had thought even before Jouni wrote about it.

But this is just my interpretation. I don't know what your answer was supposed to sound like or whether or not debatish tones in your arguments are just a coincidence or result of different cultures.

>So, are you just exercising in debating?

No, no, no! We don't have debating culture in Finland. I've only debated twice, and although it can be quite funny to watch or even participate in, I don't think it has practically anything to do with who is right. My view is typical to Finns, we loath people who bring debating tactics to actual discussions (in case we notice that. Often we are just wondering what the heck the other guy is talking about).

So, just to make sure I don't insult you, I don't think your just debating regardless of facts. But your style does have some aspects that could be interpreted that way, if I wanted to.

>> I'm not sure whether dispute is a right word,
>> but what I wanted to dispute was your
>> interpretation of the point Jouni was trying
>> to make.
>
> Then -- in case you're really trying to help
> communication -- I look forward to seeing
> above-requested examples.

Well, to quote what Jouni (later) wrote: "Its about design decision of adding OoO. Not about two different teams, but effect on result should a team chooce OoO or inorder , and comparing different teams or different times is just approximation of it." I think that every time you took the discussion to actual designs, you were missing the point.

(That is, when discussing with Jouni. I don't remember what the state of the discussion was when Jouni joined in or which of his messages started the dialogue between you and him. The thing is, contexts evolve. Sometimes even the subject is changed. There's nothing special about that.)

> Well, if you feel you misunderstood me,
> what's the point in continuing this
> discussion?

There wouldn't be any point continuing if I didn't know would there? I wasn't sure whether I had misunderstood. Competing theory (sorry, hypothesis) was that you were conviniently changing your argument depending on what you wanted to prove.

> I just suspect that even this will not be
> enough and will likely result in yet
> another post from you how I seem to not
> respect context, not listen to what
> others say etc.

We just have very different view on how you should listen to other people. You "just take it for what it is", while I think that 99 % of people often make mistakes in both writing and reading, or more generally, communicating. You have several times interpreted what I wrote wrong. I'm not trying to assign blame here. Since I'm obviously less proficient in English than you, it is by definition more probable that I was to blame.

But it happened. We miscommunicated. I'm asking you to deal it differently than you do. Not acting like the fact that there was a miscommunication proves that the other guy is an idiot.

> I think you admitted that the context you
> introduced differed significantly. No?

From the Jouni's context, yes. Not that much from the one that had evolved after after I joined in (how that was born, I cannot answer without reading the messages again, but I don't suppose there was anything special going on).

> Prescott is just a particular (but telling)
> example. The context -- no, it's you who
> thinks of different context etc.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree at this point.

> I don't try to repeat myself, it comes naturally.

Yeah, it would for me too if I was writing in Finnish. It's considered bad style here. As far as I understand, there are different guidelines in English.

> Or just defended your friend not caring much
> about the subject and essence of the
> discussion?

Well, I don't know him (outside this board) and don't usually agree with him, but do find his style, well, homely. So maybe that was a factor.

> Like the whole example was meant to yield
> a response and then show how easily I can
> misunderstand what was "really" meant?
> Ah, geddit now.

You must be kidding? How about I didn't care writing about something I didn't expect you to reply and that wasn't terribly relevant to anything anyway? Especially after two hours of writing.

I guess it's just how you think of other people.

-JLarja