[PATCH v2] X86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts

[Ramkumar Ramachandra]

Jim Grosbach wrote:
> No. The above rule is absolutely the wrong thing to do, as has been
> previously noted.

I don't give a shit about whether you think it is "absolutely wrong"
or not; I did what hpa and the Intel manual outlined.  If you have
some _reason_ not to do that, bring it up.

I reported four bugs a few days ago, and the community has shown ZERO
(if not NEGATIVE) interest in fixing them.  I got Linus and hpa to
comment on the issue, and help the community figure out what needs to
be done.  I posted not one, but MULTIPLE patches demonstrating
desirable behavior, despite having ZERO prior experience with compiler
engineering.  Nobody else has posted a single patch, or helped me
write one; instead, they have been sitting around being fabulously
counter-productive, and stalling all progress.

Can you remind me why I'm still trying to help LLVM, and don't just
throw it out the window? (Hint: It's sheer persistence; anyone else
would've given up a long time ago)

Do you value contributors at all? (That's a rhetorical, because I
already know the answer from the way you've been treating me: no)

Do you care about getting LLVM to work with real-world codebases?
(Again a rhetorical, because I already know the answer: no)