What's good job your boy Ross back again with another video? So we got to check out the truth about wrestling YouTube by none other than wrestling flashback Apparently he gave a few shout outs to some of the wrestling content creators on YouTube and I believe He also shot of me out So I'm looking forward to checking this out man and shout out to him I believe he had messaged me on Instagram said he he Appreciates my reactions to his compilation. So definitely if you haven't already go subscribe to wrestling flashback right now Man, he's a dope content creator. He just brings back the nostalgia of the the good old days of of the attitude era and just Even different other eras like attitude era the ruthless aggression era and just older clips that you know We grew up watching so shout out to him man. Let's check this out. I'm very excited about this man Appreciate all love and support on the channel. Let's do this name Is this on the weird and wonderful world of wrestling YouTube wrestling is melodrama Wrestling is mythology wrestling is action wrestling is comic books The only thing wrestling isn't Is wrestling now I've been an avid watcher of YouTube wrestling videos for the best part of 10 years if you love pro wrestling chances are You've stumbled upon a YouTube creator now and again that you love watching Wrestling fans can genuinely be some of the most entertaining people on the planet and throughout my time watching YouTube I've seen them all from the early days of wrestling fan reviews to the build-up of more professionally produced channels There is literally a wrestling YouTube channel for everyone whether you love the informative videos talking about wrestling's past Whether you love opinions and reviews of past shows whether you like wrestling parodies and botches whether you like wrestling podcasts Whether you enjoy watching old clips and compilations or even if you just like That's dope. Oh, that's cool man. Shout out to you, bro. Thank you so much for showing us some love The in the clutch squire, you know, we be checking out some of the wrestling clips on the main page Thank you man. Once again, that's awesome Fans react to those compilations. The list is endless Wrestling YouTube features some of the smartest hilarious and entertaining creators who along with the wrestlers many of us have grown up with Now you might be wondering why am I mentioning this on my channel Well, because it's a big reason why I'm making videos today And I'd like to thank each and every one of these creators no matter how big or small Paving that's awesome. You see, I've been a wrestling fan for as long as I can remember and I remember my first match being Rick Flare versus Hulk Hogan 1995 my whole family was into it and I dreamt about getting into the business somehow whether that be as an active wrestler a Commentator an announcer or even a referee. I just knew that I wanted my future Crazy world Unfortunately, I'm sure like many of you Life catches up with you and instead like so many others I gave up on that dream and landed a corporate job as an accountant since then I've tried my hand at a few other things But I always had that urge to somehow make a living from the one thing. I've always loved Pro wrestling as bad as the lockdown in 2020 was it did allow me to rekindle my love for pro wrestling I got some downtime and I started to post some of my favorite clips from the past on TikTok and Instagram A year and a half later these pages grew like crazy with hundreds of thousands of followers and due to the height of man for YouTube videos I finally decided to bring my videos to the platform I'd watch for the last 10 years in December 2021 now I just want to say a massive thank you to all of you who've watched and shared the videos Because I've had over 30 million views and gained over 60,000 subscribers awesome for short months I just found one of the funniest wrestling videos. I've ever seen on YouTube. It's called Santino Morella mispronouncing names Got it.  Yeah, we did check out your video on the main page a few months back That was a that was a funny one too, bruh, which have made it that much This this video made my night this video made my night, bro This this was this is great, bro. This is super super dope, bro Keep doing it bro. Keep doing your thing man The wrestling community we support you, you know, and I know I support you because I know it takes time and effort to make these compilations and you have literally brought some laughter to my day Anytime I check out your video, bro. Thank you so much, man. You're you're dope, bro. Oh Unfortunately though just like anything all good things come to an end I was no longer able to monetize the compilation videos because they weren't deemed significant value add by YouTube Now as much as I would love to produce the content for free There are a number of hours that go into creating any one video Damn, it just isn't sustainable for me to do so but for those of you who still want the previous Compilations and the new ones I'll be making each week. You can subscribe to my new patreon There's a link in the description to access all of those on the bright side. Hey, I'm gonna I'm gonna find a link And I'm gonna pin it down below I'm gonna find a link and I'm gonna pin it down below Y'all we got to go show him some love on patreon man. He's making these clips for us So I'm gonna pin the link to his patreon as the first comment We got to show him love, bro Like this is something something that we all enjoy and the fact that he can't make money off of it He deserves to make some type of compensation So go I'm going to link down the description of the link to his patreon And let me know if you subscribe to him and show him some love, bro This is we need to help him out because he's helped us out. We're creating some dope compilation I was expecting this to eventually happen Which is why I decided to supplement the videos with commentary style videos where I share my thoughts Opinions and insights into certain topics in wrestling. Many of you seem to be enjoying those which is great So in the future, I'll continue to peel back the curtain and hopefully provide you with some valuable insight into the Wrestling business that you might not have known before so with that being said allow me to introduce myself My name is Ricky and I've been working on wrestling flashback for the last two years. Yeah So in the second half of this video, I'm gonna respond to a few of the Q&A questions You guys have submitted and I'm also gonna respond to a few hate comments So that should be quite interesting. So a team says I want to thank you for the videos Respect for the support and then who is your top five wrestlers of all time? Okay, so this is a tough one so I'm gonna go off the dome pretty quick and say Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart Eddie Guerrero the Rock and It's a toss-up between Austin and Taker, but I'll give it to Austin and that's my favorite not best I don't want you guys to murder me in the comments I'm not gonna say my best quite yet might do a video on it though So Ari and ask how do you come up with topics for videos?  So the topics for videos usually come from my head I'm literally I go for a run every morning and then I just think of stuff off the bat And then watching other videos seeing how they're made and then kind of just putting my own little twists on things They give me ideas what inspired me to start YouTube channel I actually started on tiktok and Instagram two years ago So I literally just quit my job as a corporate accountant and tiktok I think that's a big thing at the time. So I was like, oh, okay, everything's on tiktok Let me just find some wrestling videos and at the time which is completely different to right now There were literally no wrestling videos. So I decided to step up the team and I started wrestling tiktok back in I think it was July 2020 I don't know if there were some creators before me or not. I didn't see them But yeah, so I just like posting on their old clips I think my first video was of this clip of Stephanie and Triple H It was not so much that it was the game that was short.   I think it's funny It's like the new watch Romania, but it's shorter videos so easier to consume. I like wrestling bios very informative great content and Tap out corner. Those are my three favorite Riley McKenzie says top ten reasons Indians love Roman Reigns.  I don't even know why Indians love Roman Reigns. I'm Indian Do I like Roman Reigns? Yes, but why I'm not so sure if you're Indian. Maybe comment Winston says I've never watched wrestling before but stumbled upon undertake a rise up vids since then I've been watched so many of your vid subscribe to the WWE Network and Gorge myself on classic WrestleMania's and rumbles respect. I'm glad them the videos have to get you into wrestling Okay, so that's most of the Q&A stuff done and now it's time to move on to my favorite section Responding to all you haters out there to be fair. I don't get much hate I would sometimes expect that I would actually get more but you guys are quite tame not saying that I want more hate But yeah, I appreciate that you guys are quite tame and you guys and a lot of you guys are actually really supportive So that's awesome. That's good to see Throughout this whole journey. I've had so much support from so many of you so I do want to say Thank you, Florida boy says so you want us to pay for something We were already getting for you beforehand now best of luck to you though. I understand you have to make a living I respect it Um fair play. Yeah, I mean it do only reason I put it on patreon is because I was getting paid for it before and It does take a lot of time to make a compilation once again I'm gonna lay down his patreon as the first pig comment. He deserves to get compensated for the amount of time He goes into compilations. I want you guys to understand He's getting the clips. He's trying to cut them up So WWE doesn't block it and that takes time and a lot of these clips don't just go in order A lot of these clips he's getting are from different Time like I guess you could say different periods in that era, you know saying so he has to know exactly Which clipping to get how to cut it up put it together. It's not that easy that takes time and He deserves to get compensated for it like when you think of like the JR one-liners to try and find every single time He says like back on or that is just picked up I mean it takes a while because I mean if I was to ask you find me ten clips of him saying business has picked up It'd probably be very difficult for you to do I mean it takes like hours of research to pick out those moments put it together Whatever, so it's just not worth my while to just put it out for free and I apologize But I mean I have given you guys free content for the last two years So I mean maybe give me a little bit of a break lol wait killer channel Yeah, I'll just be moving all the compilations to a paid platform because I'm not doing this as a passion It's purely for money. Goodbye. Um, I guess that's the same answer as previously I mean sometimes people can be a little bit entitled to think. Oh, okay. Yeah I expect to get everything for free or whatever. I mean a I pay for the network So so there's money going in there for me to like gain the clips and then putting all together takes hours I mean if you want though create your own and I'll happily watch and support Yeah, if you want to do it as a passion for free and I'm pretty sure I've got some subscribers you've watched as well So why don't you do us that service? So this was on the Christian edge video comparing the two aliyah Hussein says first of all saying edge's biggest star is BS Because he really is not they're both the same you cut that out sassy edge was not the focus That's why none of his matches were in the main event I'm pretty sure he was in the main event quite a few times Christian is an icon big star that everyone knows of that improved the rating by doing nothing in 21 No, I got no hate for Christian It was more just a collective opinion on what everyone else thinks of the two and why Edge is seen as the biggest on it is by no means mean that edge is better than Christian It's just that people related to him a lot more the next time think about posting an insulting pathetic video Let's see if you actually have the guts to reply well I'm here, but but I do have to say your points were kind of invalid But I respect your opinion say twizel says seriously hate titles like these is best They don't show themselves because I'm the type to really confront them in person and pick a fight If I ever see them, I hate people like that.  You know what I like them too if I could do that all day long I would it's easy for me to make but unfortunately the way the YouTube copyright system works That's just not possible. I want y'all to understand man the YouTube copyright system it is You gotta it's a give-and-take relationship, bro It's not as simple as turning on the camera turning on your screen recorder and calling in a day No, you got to be aware of what you can't have what you can't have got to cut out stuff got to keep stuff It's it's a lot of it's a lot that go into it more than you realize, you know, I'm saying so But shout out to him for making it work So you're gonna have to get used to the voice otherwise you can always unsubscribe Josh Peck's dad says Why do you keep posting videos and then he goes on to say stop making videos? You know you can block me Jeremy the unfallable says what does your interest say something and then is this on lol?  Well, if you were a wrestling fan in the attitude era one of my favorite entrance themes was the Triple H My time theme and that intro is actually the song of that song. Yeah, I'll give you a quick little clip Hopefully doesn't get copyrighted Stephen Harlow says so what is the point of telling what is going to happen and then just show the clip? Well, I've got to add some context to the video, which is why I tell what happens and if it was just all clip then again YouTube doesn't like that. That's reuse content. So I gotta add a yeah my own flair to it Yes, transform it this voice Versatile wolf NWO says no disrespect, but this whole list is wrong from start. Please delete the video I can't even remember what video this is on but um fair enough Fair enough so yeah, there's not too much hate, but I think that just about wraps up the video so thank you for taking the time to watch and if you watch till the end appreciate it and Yeah, subscribe to the channel like it. Tell me. I'm good. Tell me. I'm bad. Tell me whatever I do not mind at all. Everyone has this is dope. Definitely have to hit a like with this I'm already subscribed to him. I'm gonna Does he have the patreon link in here? Yes, he does I'm gonna link down copy the patreon link it down as the first comment In in the comment section show him some love bro show him some love He shouted out the intercuss probably page and my personal page. So shout out to you man Keep doing your thing, bro. You know the love and support will always be over here, man So comment down below. Let me know. Wish y'all favorite wrestling YouTube channel to check out outside of me. I may not even be some of y'all favorite. Maybe I'll just like me But what's your favorite YouTube channels to check out wrestling channels to check out outside of me? Personally, I do like parts one. No, I do check out Russell talk Um Kota-holic definitely loves some Kota-holic wrestling Those are some of the the main know the noticeable ones. I do like wrestling Lamia. Do check out some of the stuff outside of Me recording I know some people don't really too much care for his feelings on Twitter JD from New York I know a lot of people don't care too much for his opinions But I do agree with a lot of what he says, you know, I'm saying he can't be a little extra But I have been subscribed to JD for quite some time and I think Polana Productions a lot of people don't really care for his takes too much But I do check out some of his stuff off camera as well But those are some of the noticeable ones I can think of off the top of my head I'm gonna know this plane more but comment down below. Let me know and Definitely go hit down hit up his patreon and show him some love. I appreciate all love support row 2 90k appreciate y'all keep on me. See you next


Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're in downtown San Francisco at Moscone West at the Professional Business Women of California Conference. 6,000 women, this thing's been going on for 28 years. It's a pretty amazing show. We see a lot of big women in tech conferences. This is certainly one of the biggest and it's all about diversity, not just women. And of course, if there's a women in tech event, who are we going to see? Sandy Carter. So Sandy, so great to see you. CEO of Silicon Blitz and been involved with PBWC for a while. Yeah, I had suggested to Congresswoman Jackie when I saw her about three or four years ago about doing something special for the senior women. And so I proposed this leadership summit and you know what they always say? If you suggest something, be prepared to execute it. So she said, would you help us get this going? So three years ago I started the senior leaders forum here and yesterday we had that forum. We had 75 amazing women from all the great companies of California, Chevron, Clorox, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Amazon, you name it, all the great companies you're in the bay. Oh, Salesforce, Airbnb, blah, blah, blah, blah. So that was like a little conference at the conference? Yeah, so it was for C-suite only. And it was about 75 women. And we do three TED talks and we pick out talk that are hot but that are very actionable for companies. So yesterday, Jeff, we talked about millennials, how to have inclusion of millennials in your workforce. So 50% of the workforce by 2020 will be millennials. So this is really important. Is that a harder challenge than just straight up diversity? It may be. But I had Allison Erwinner and Irby Foster from Clorox come and speak and they did a TED talk and then we actually do like little workshops to action. Okay, what would a millennial program look like? Our second topic was around innovation. So how do you link diversity to innovation? And there's so many studies, Carnegie Mellon, Silicon Valley, Harvard, Deloitte, that shows there is a linkage, but how do you get the linkage? And so for all these amazing- The linkage between better business outcomes. Correct, better outcomes. That's right, in fact, the latest study from Harvard came out at the end of 2016 that showed not only with diverse teams do you get more innovation but more profitable innovation, which is everybody's bailiwick today. And so we had Jeremiah Owang of Crowd Companies who's an innovation expert come and really do that session for us. And then last but not least, we talked about diversity and inclusion, primarily inclusion in the next century. What is that going to look like? And so we saw some facts about what's going on in changes in population, changes in diversity, and then how we as companies should manage programs in order to tap into those changes. So it was an awesome, awesome session. And then of course, we had Pat Waters from LinkedIn. She is a chief talent officer there. She came and kind of closed it out with her definition of inclusion. So it was powerful.  I won an award. Congratulations. What did you win? So a game changer for PBWC. And I'm really proud of it because last year we had Serena Williams speak and she was the first recipient. So I guess she's having great company because it's now Serena and I with this great award. Yeah, absolutely. So before we went on air, we were talking about some of this kind of next gen diversity, thinking about getting that into programming languages. And you brought up, there was some conversation around bots and obviously chat bots are all their age and AI and ML is driving a lot of this. But ultimately someone's got to write the software to teach these things how to behave. So you're going to run into the same types of issues if you don't have kind of a diversity of the thinking of the way the rules and those bots work as you have in any other situation where you kind of singular thinking. Yeah, I think Jeff, you're right on. In fact, I think it's really going to accelerate the desire for diverse teams. So if you think about artificial intelligence, machine learning and bots, you have to train the computer, right? The computer's not naturally smart. And so there's a team that actually uses a corpus of knowledge and trains the bot. If the data that goes in, my dad always said garbage in, garbage out. If the data that goes in is biased, then the output is biased. And we're seeing that now. For instance, I was just looking at some VR headsets and people are now looking at virtual reality.  And so as a result, it greatly improved the nauseousness of men, but not women. And that's just one example. Like you want your product to go for a shot of the world. That's weird. You think that would be pretty biological. You would, but there are apparently differences. Yeah, we talked to a doctor yesterday. There's apparently differences in motion sickness between the two. And if you only have one set of data, you don't have the other. Right, right. But then there's this other kind of interesting danger with machine learning. And I think we see it a lot in kind of what's going on in the news and causing a lot of diversion within the country in that, you know, the algorithms are going to keep feeding you more of that, which you already have demonstrated an affinity to. So it's almost like, you know, you have to purposefully break the things or specifically tell it either through active action or programming that, no, please send me stuff that I'm not necessarily seeing all the time. Please give me stuff. That's going to give me a diversity of points of view and opinion and sources because it feels like with your basic kind of recommendation engine, it's going to keep sending you more of the same and kind of rat hole you down one little, little track. That is true. And that's why, you know, today we have a panel and we're going to be talking about, especially for AI and bots, you must have diverse teams.  We've got to do this. And I think the same thing is going to be true for AR bots. Jeff, if you don't have a diverse team, you will not get the right answer from a bot. Right, right.  And all of them wanted to do bots. Really? They had all played with the Zootopia. Well, they all had played with the Zootopia bot from Disney. So I don't know, did you see the Zootopia? I did not see it. I heard it was a great movie. Oh, it's a great movie. And I made a movie of the year. Bunny's his cops, right? That's right. In fact, the bunny is what they made into a chat bot. Okay. And 10 million kids use that chat bot to get a little badge. And so now all the kids are into bots. They use bots to remind them to brush their teeth to do their homework. In fact, there was a chat bot written by a 14-year-old boy in Canada. That's a homework reminder. I think it's actually really quite good. All I'm thinking of is the Microsoft little pen. Oh yeah. I guess timing is everything. Yeah, timing is everything. That's right. That one didn't work so well. But I guess what I would just leave with people is that when you're looking at this great, great new technology for AI and bots in particular, you must have a diverse team. You must look at your data. Your data's got to be unbiased. Like you said, if you just keep doing the same old thing, you're going to get the same old answer. So you've got to do something different. Right. And you're doing all kinds of stuff, right? You're working with the girls in tech on the board there. I think you're doing some stuff with the Athena Alliance who's driving to get more women on the boards. So you're really kind of putting your toes in all kinds of puddles to really help move this thing. Because it also came up in the keynote. It's not a strategy problem. It's an execution problem. That's right. And because I'm so passionate about tech, I love tech. And I see this linkage today that has never really been there that strong before, but now it's almost like if you don't have diversity, your AI and bots are going to fail. Forrest, you just said that AI and bots is the future. So companies have to pay attention to this now. I really think it's the moment of time. Okay. So running out of time, I'll give you the last word. What are one or two kind of concrete things that you've seen in your experience that leaders can do like came up today in the keynote tomorrow to really help move the ball down the field? So I think one is to make sure you have a diverse team and make sure that it represents diversity of thought. And that could be age, it could be gender, it could be sexual orientation, race. You got to look at that diversity of team. That's one. Secondly, just by having a diverse team doesn't mean you're going to get great output. You've got to be inclusive. You've got to give these folks great projects, like millennials, give them a passion project, let them go and do something that can really make a difference. And then third, I think you have to test and make sure what you're delivering out there represents that cognitive diversity of thought. So make sure that you're not just putting stuff out there just to get it out there, but really double checking it. I think those are three actionable things that you can do tomorrow. All right, that's great, Sandy. Well, thank you very much. Thanks, Jeff. And thanks for stopping by. We just checked Sandy's calendar and then we know where to take the cube because she's all over the place. All right, so she's Sandy Carter. I'm Jeff Frick. You're watching theCUBE from the Professional Business Women of California Conference in San Francisco. Thanks for watching.


I'm Jeremy Bennett. This is a bit of an experimental first for the LLVM rem. It's a panel session and we have one throat microphone. It's intended to stimulate a discussion. Quick show of hands, how many people here have worked or are working on LLVM? I'd include in that anything in the LLVM toolchain. How many people here are working on GCC or anything in the GNU toolchain? How many people here have dipped into or are dipping into both? Actually, there's a number. The point is there are quite a few people who work or have worked on both projects and it's probably time we tried to work out how to work better together. We had a first session at this at the GNU tools cauldron. You can go and watch the videos online. The link is on the abstract for this. But we wanted to go into a primarily LLVM audience and the LLVM foundation suggested that FOSDEM was where you were going to find the broadest spectrum of views. Not in California. That's what we've got. We have three panellists to lead the discussion. Arno de Grommeysong, Pedra Alves and Tom Tromey. I'm going to let each of them briefly introduce themselves. Then what we're looking for is a discussion about how we can work together. In particular, afterwards we'll look at the recording and see if there are some concrete ideas of things we can actually take away and do rather than having a nice comfortable chat about them and then nothing happens. Here's the aid memoir and we can cover anything else. It's not just GCC and Clang LLVM. It's the whole tool chains, LLDB if you're a LLD, GDP, binutils and so forth. For that further ado, let me ask each of the panellists to just say a couple of words about themselves. Hi, my name is Tom Tromey. I work at ADECOR primarily on GDP, but in the past I've worked on GCC and I also worked on Rust for a while, so I've worked on LLVM and LLDB as well. Hi, my name is Pedro Alves and I work at Red Hat on the debug team. I've been working on GDP for a while and I'm a GDP maintainer and contributor. I'm Arnaud de Gromaison. I'm working at ARM. I spend a long time in the compilation team at ARM working on LLVM and before joining ARM I was in startups doing custom DSP, working on a custom DSP and a custom processor and I was in charge of the tool chain, which was obviously LLVM based. He just goes to the camera. Okay. Okay, so this is intended to be a session where everyone participates, the three at the front, to stimulate discussion. I've put up on the basis of the meeting we had at the GNU cauldron, some areas that I think matter and where we could work close together. Language standardisation, ABI compatibility, interoperability between the tool chains and also channels of communication. How do we talk together? Do we need different conferences and so forth? What like is each of the panellists now to give their first thought on the one most important thing we could do to improve cooperation? I should have expected to be on the spot. Yeah, I'm very bad at planning. My primary focus is on debugging. That's what I know the most about. When I look at the debugging world, I think it's actually in a worse state than the user language world, like writing C or C++. I think that one thing that would be very good to do is to have GCC and LLVM explicitly co-operate on improving the dwarf standard and documenting and standardising the extensions that they both use. I think that would be a very fruitful way of cooperation. Wow, you've said everything. I come from a debug background as well. Actually, my work on the compiler side is not very meaningful. Looking at the current state and the current like duopoly in the debugger land in open source, I see two aspects that would be nice to improve. One of them is an area of focus right now for our group. It's on the quality of the bug information. We've been looking at the quality of the dwarf that the compilers emit. Does it represent the original source accurately? Does it support the whole set of dwarf, the whole features, which compiler emits the correct output, which one needs to be fixed? It would be nice if we joined efforts in the testing side in the testing frameworks that validate the quality of the bug information. I know that there have been efforts on the LLVM side about this. It would be nice to chat about it. That was the second point, which I forgot right now. It will come back. Sorry. It's a bit hard to be in the third position there. Maybe to differentiate a bit. I think it tightly links to what you've said. I think we could probably better cooperate as communities around the language standards. My understanding of the language standards or the standards, if we consider dwarf as a language or not, I don't know. My impression is that mostly in the standards committees companies are represented. Whether this is LLVM or GCC, this is more tools for experimenting with the new standards. But this is not representing the whole GCC or the whole LLVM community as a whole. I don't know if I'm right there, but I don't think we have LLVM only representative or GCC only representative at those standards. On a kind of a tangent that touches standards, again from the debug side, because that's my expertise, for example, there's been a push on LLVM for open MP support, I think, and yeah, I'm sure. For debugging open MP, there's a standard called OMPD, which is open MP debugging, and that requires implementing a library that exposes a standard interface. What's happening right now is that LLVM is implementing that library, and GNU side also needs to implement something like that, exposing the same library and other tool chains like the Intel compiler also is doing the same, and we have a mixed match of a matrix of the burgers across run times like GDB against the LLVM run time, GDB against OMP from the GNU side, and LLVB against GCC and the matrix. It would be nice to see about sharing that infrastructure, maybe sharing even the code, and that can only work if we cooperate and discuss and experiment together. The other point which I had forgotten earlier came back to me. I wanted to mention like the LLVM uses the remote protocol from GDB, and it has its own extensions, and it would be nice to cooperate in the sense of the ones that are generically usable would be standardised and documented in a single place, and the longer we take to get to that point, the more we will end up diverging, and we don't want to end up in a place where tools end up more incompatible. Sorry about talking only about debug stuff. Okay, thank you. At this point, I'd like to throw out the same question to the assembled multitude. If you'd like to put your hand up so we catch it on tape, if you make your point, I will try and summarise it and repeat it. Anyone here have a view on the most important areas where we could improve co-operation between GCC and LLVM? I think somewhere of a neutral forum for discussion would help in that you've got a sort of basically LLVM mailing list, you have GCC mailing list, you can be known in one and not the other, and there's sometimes intimidating to cross the gap. So let's say more places where you can sort of tread on a more neutral place. If you just say it, I'll repeat it for you. I do not know if he has a very big test, but if you accept the test by the GCC community, we could throw together the test for maintaining co-operation. So the suggestion is that GCC's big regression test suite could be brought together and have it as a test suite for LLVM. I have to say that professionally we've been doing that for 10 years, so it's there, but it will be good to formalise that so everyone can pick it up, they don't have to come up with our magic copy of it. Any other comments? Excellent. So we now have some of those there, so that's great news, the torture tests are there. Which are the ones that cause pain? Let's talk about that first. I'm really curious about this. Like I know GCC incorporates some things from LLVM, sanitisers or whatever, and those are just imported periodically, and maybe there's local hacks I don't really know. On what basis are the GCC torture tests integrated into LLVM? Do patches go back to GCC? Is that? Because I feel like this is an important thing where I feel like, like for instance this thing about co-operating on dwarf, which is territory I'm really comfortable with, right? Like there, part of the process has to be like a social commitment by the maintainers to say, if you're going to extend the dwarf, you have to follow that are agreed upon thing. You have to upstream it or document it or whatever. But that requires like a commitment from both sides. But I'm concerned like just hearing that and if you don't know the answer, like is it a fork of the GCC test suite that to me seems like worse somehow. It's a bad outcome. I didn't do the work. I believe it's actually, it is a fork and it works by actually having a blacklist of tests that won't run. That's been done once before and of course then people end up running a 10-year out-of-date test suite. So I think there are two good points there. One, it's good that the co-operation is happening, but the second is actually if it just leads to another fork, then it's possibly not long-term valuable. More comments from the assembled multitude? I think one thing that works well that I see occur sometimes between projects is just practicing careful communication and respect kind of thing. It's very common for people, like I tried to dissuade people from saying, oh, why was this implemented this way or not that way kind of thing and generally be respectful of the competition. I think helps in all discussions on either sides of things. One thing that I wish we had more of was more of like an RFC proposal would be interesting for certain language extensions that like right now either side will ship extensions without input from the other and not necessarily take these to the ISO standards bodies and I think that's okay, but then typically multiple implementations will work out different kinks or interesting edge cases or things don't compose a certain way with other features and these typically only kind of shake out once you get more than one implementation. So the comment being made is that if you have divergence of extensions as part of the language exploration, then people writing application code have a nightmare of making sure it works on both GCC and LLVM. Just about the documentation thing, I think one issue there is, if you work on GCC, you're familiar with GCC and if you work on Clang, you're familiar with Clang, there may be no one who can write that document who understands the subtleties of the divergence in some particular feature. But I really liked your point and it really reminds me actually of what happens in the web world where different browsers collaborate and features sort of don't become web standards until they're implemented in multiple browsers and they have, like you said, more or less an RFC process and I think that would be an excellent idea. So on the RFC process, maybe one thought I have of where it might get hard to implement it is that the more people you involve into a discussion, the longer it takes and it seems something... I've seen the past incompatibilities between two tool chains appear because in one community there's a quick need to implement something would be relatively straightforward and in the other community they don't see the need as quickly and so one community moves ahead because there's a genuine need for it and the other community doesn't react as quickly. So that might be something to overcome, maybe not necessarily completely impossible. From my point of view, I would say my personal experiences, I find most of the difficulties to come from probably the ABI site in that whenever a new feature gets implemented quite often without realising there's some small binary interface all of a sudden that gets created and it sets a defective standard and it doesn't get documented. Maybe that's because I work more on back-end sites stuff and it's just... probably every week, at least every month some small extra addition happens to a binary interface somewhere and I would say the majority of binary interfaces go completely undocumented and so I'm starting to wonder would it make a difference if we tried to recognise there is a new binary interface that's at least just documented so it becomes more visible and it's not just three people who implemented it and you have to reverse engineer from code would that be helpful? I have the impression that just documenting it would not solve it because when you're... it's only when the other team goes and tries to implement it even based on documentation that they realise oh, this corner case wasn't considered and it's only them that will notice it because the original team just implicitly thought it worked that way didn't even think it would be a possible design point change so it feels to me like a lot of this is going to be based around communication and just reaching out and being friends making bridges and break away from that mindset of them versus us we're all just toolchain people who work on the same kinds of problems and we should I'm adding this extension for the C language I should reach out to that friend on the other side and see what he thinks about it and hash it out a little bit at least in public in preference and make that a way to shake out some things before they are done and documented it and then what frequently happens is it's released and shipped and out and only released later is the other side aware of... oh, there's an extension for that let's try it and then it's already too late because it's already in the wild so the point is reaching out and to build on the point you raised earlier on and also on what Christophe was saying with the fact that the two compiler teams may not be working with exactly the same agenda for different reasons I think what would really be important apart from having some documentation for the ABI would also be to have some tests because just the description of the ABI is not enough ABI can be quite subtle and the corner cases are not often not described in the specification or why you are doing things this way so there you really need tests that's an excellent point that's an excellent point and it's something that you can do in your own team without reaching outside and it feels to me like that's a good engineering if you're not doing that, you're doing it wrong you've got a question at that patiently waiting so the question was the small device it's a very good question so Microsoft have outli open sourced their library last year yes, I think the whole point is to bring in all voices Microsoft is changing they were at the GNU Tools Cauldron this year which I think is a first very positive and big support they are changing as a company and of course the whole point about free and open is it's inclusive that's a great point two questions here so that's somehow related to specification and testing but writing test is not the most tremendous task or the most enjoyable task and whenever we develop a new security feature we could write the tests as a whole community and in a generic way and then everybody could implement it and take advantage of the test suite that's some area where both from an engineering point of view and from a time spent point of view collaboration is fruitful and not very difficult to set up I wish that for 45 souls there would be a test suite that I could use that's a good part from my personal experience the GNU regression test suite is based on a deja-gannu features that say is this feature supported and if you write those generally above you can give them GCC or LLVM and it will work out whether the test can run the problem is the GCC test suite is huge and very old and only the best and newest tests actually work like that so the real world hits a bit there I have a similar question he made a talk about changing the compiler from GCC to Clang and I saw many projects that tried to standardize don't use GCC specific stuff and I think it would be great as a user to have more interoperability so RLVM can just change my compiler without having to think much and I think it goes currently the other way around that some projects just require to use Clang and if I had a platform that isn't supported by Clang I have no chance to do anything and that would be great as a user Here I'd like to say that on one hand interoperability is a nice goal to have the other thing I mean if you try to do embedded software it's often a good idea to test it with multiple compilers because they will make different implementation choice and you need to be to accept that what you have written is not portable so I mean that's the point of interoperability just a subset will be interoperable so that's I mean it goes both ways I'd like to ask the panel what they think about deprecation or it's not deprecation I'm talking re-implementation so if like it or not all the calls for collaboration get pushed ahead further in one than the other and then the other will try and catch up as such in some ways it's akin to code review you do something downstream you then move it upstream and it gets code reviewed it gets changed is there a way of deploying newer features as maybe some kind of tentative extensions or is it anything that you put in binary for life I guess is there rule for say communities to introduce things a sort of ok you can use this but it's not standardised yet whatever it may change in the future that type of thing that's a good question I think we ought to ask the panel and I'll start with Arna this time so I'm not sure I understood fully your question but so around for the deprecation it's a bit hard because you as long as you have one user who does not step-bort near refuses to upgrade his codebase you cannot fully deprecate the stuff or you will have to stick with an old version of the tools I'm far from an expert on the compiler side and the runtime side there are some things that have been deprecated like I'm thinking for example on the G-Lipsy side there are facilities to if you really really need to you can create a new entry point and use help me Mark the symbol versions exactly thank you to like the old binary will still run and link at load time with the original deprecated version but if you try to compile again the program it will be using the newer ABI entry points so it's possible to deprecate things on the runtime side on the compiler side I'm not sure what the answer is I kind of feel like if it's there it's there forever I'm sure he may have found some compiler flags which are dating from very very old versions of the compiler and the compilers are just ignoring them just so that the build scripts don't fail this is that it's not specific to compilers I mean LS has obsolete flags and they are still there and just enough so that's common practice although software was named soft opposed to hardware once in there it becomes a hard stuff that's the command line aspect on the coding side on the language support side is there any like when we will get rid of C89 or before in 40 years I think one thing is you have to differentiate between the different cases of compatibility like for source language in a way it's easier to just say we will no longer accept K&R declarations or whatever it's just errors now I mean I don't know if they are I'm just saying it hypothetically and then people who want to have a 30 year old C compiler should go find one what's hard is ABI compatibility especially if what happens pretty commonly is someone implements the ABI and they think they did a good job but they made a mistake and it's not found out till later if you just have one toolchain like GCC made a mistake it's better to just leave the mistake now it's the standard even though it's ridiculous but it's more difficult when there's two compilers involved because you can have this thing where you have parallel implementations and one or the other makes a mistake or they disagree about what's a mistake or it's undocumented and so they both made a choice and even those cases can be treated differently you know you could say well as communities we'll have a commitment to following the standard so if you catch us in a mistake we'll like make our user suffer a little and change but that has to be like a two way street everyone has to agree to that like as a social thing and then for the case of like implementing a new feature like it's not documented and you want to make some choice you have to also make it like it's a social problem you have to say we'll commit to sending a note to some ABI list to say hey this is what we're planning to do stop us before we strike or whatever Yeah, a question I guess to Peter to reinterpret your question were you asking more about things with thought of potentially deprecating it in the future? Yes, so I'm thinking less about implementing things that are already standardised like things in the front end I'm thinking about say I've got some new binary security features I'm just going to pull stack protection out of the out of the hat here and it will work in a certain way in a compiler that's a downstream binary thing the compiler can choose how it implements it but it has as Christof mentioned some form of ABI clang comes up to that does it need to match precisely it might not be possible to match precisely at the moment I'm talking about for things like that that are kind of not in the area of anything that's really written down how do you get it so that say for example you can maybe transition to a form that both can accept and that might involve changing and I think partly it's also got to be driven by the community I think when there's demand from users that clang and GCC work together they will do it when there's not demand in areas that nobody cares about it's not going to happen so I think it will be to the community to decide what happens so yeah one of my the reasons why I remarked writing trying to produce some documentation if you realise you're introducing some new binary interface even if it's small amount was just to try to make it a little bit easier for other projects to start using that interface one thing I so it would indeed be really nice if we could come up with introducing binary interface without from the start it being forever making it more evolvable I don't think there's an easy way to solve that problem and the only partial solution I think maybe for some binary interface might help a little bit just try to make sure there's always some kind of versioning there so if you need to change at least detectable something like that might be one step in the right direction but then it would need like general agreement oh yes every time we recognise we're introducing binary interface we'll also need we'll make sure there's some metadata somewhere easily interpretable because of version something like that at this point we're quite a long way through our discussion a lot of issues raised here I want to turn to solutions now we've had one suggestion which is for having a neutral mailing list so you don't have to that is neither GCC nor LLVM for discussing neutrally that's a good one I think to take away and see what is the organisation that can host such a list that will be trusted and respected and we can take that one away I'd like to now open up to the panel for solutions we've got one LLVM director here I don't think we've actually got her GCC steering committee member have we? no no no but start with you bedroom solutions oh man start from scratch third compiler solution you standard right I don't know solutions you were mentioning ABI versioning and it reminded me of work that Red Hat is doing and maybe I'll ask Mark we'll learn to help you with this the NICS project what's the name of that the binary tagging thing not that no that's doji's nicklifton's anubin exactly can you talk a little bit about that see what I've done there tell us the solution no it's not a solution but what anubin does is record all the compiler flags and all the the ABI's it can recognize in object files so it's not a solution but you're right I hadn't thought about that there is I don't know how far Nick is with the anubin plug-in for Clang but he was working on that okay anubin is a plug-in currently for GC where it will output ELF nodes for all the object files in which it records all the compiler flags and ABI's it's currently respecting so when you link your object files together your binaries have all the flags ever used in all the compiler versions and he also did that for Clang I don't know how far he is it's at least an interesting thing to do Fedora does it now distro wide so that you can see what is actually being used in a whole distribution which is nice I don't know whether the linker is extended I don't know whether that work progressed to a point where the linker can reject incompatible ABI's but it could be done like it could be used to you can use it to query the whole distribution see what's the ABI's you're using and I think that for versioning we could use it to validate whether the ABI's are compatible which version are you using feel like that could help if we want collaboration or better collaboration not to be just wishful thinking because I think everyone is in agreement that it's a good thing to do if we want to be pragmatic it only happens on real projects and I think both our communities are already collaborating on a need be basis I know for example at ARM the LLVM and the GCC people are working I mean are in the same building it was not the case for some time but now they are all together and we try to to make sure because ARM has an interest that it to have proper support for their product and there are other cases where I think there is collaboration so are there other projects where we could have a broader collaboration and then okay yeah I think when I listen to this I think in some cases an RFC process something like that a shared way to communicate directly between compiler developers is good for back ends like for ABI's I think there are already existing institutions that handle many of these things there is like the C committee and the C++ committee there is dwarf there is like I know more about dwarf which I think is like institutionally kind of weak that need to be strengthened and supported by like these communities but some of these areas like I think the ABI situation is similar it needs a little more commitment from developers and stuff and then some of the areas are terra incognita right like linkers I recommend it all as far as I can tell and just work by magic and like that would be a good thing to change and maybe create a new institution you know to handle that right so I don't know we're running just a bit short of time so I'm going to actually draw things to a conclusion now we've heard issues where we could do better failing us to do better we've heard some concrete suggestions mailing lists projects that we work together some detailed technology from Mark and Pedro the possibility of needing new institutions there's one other I think we've missed which we did once we had an LLVM cauldron the day before a GNU tools cauldron and 40% of the people who went to one went to the other and that was a very good particularly the evening in between when we all came to the same and all drank and ate together my two penithaer I think possibly we need to revive that idea so actually we do talk to each other because sometimes human interaction only matters it does matter I'd like to thank you all for your time I'd like to thank our panellists for giving up their time Arno in particular who came up here just for this session so I really do appreciate you travelling up here please carry on the discussion send your feedback if you can't find anyone else to tell send me an email thank you very much