[cfe-dev] Status of SEH?
jb.feldman at kyrus-tech.com
Thu Jan 30 16:47:30 PST 2014
Sorry about causing all this trouble. I misunderstood what was allowable
conversation on this list, and honestly didn't even think that I was
seriously discussing patents, I thought my statement was simply a statement
of fact, but I realize that these are things on which professionals should
be consulted. As to patent issues, I'll cross that bridge with the
oversight group if I ever get something viable to be included in llvm.
I would like to redirect my question simply to be: how do people feel
about whether it should be implemented as Visual C++ SEH or barest-bones
SEH. Being new, I'm also not sure whether that would be a CFE question or
an LLVM question, if it is better suited to llvm-dev, please let me know.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
> On 30/01/2014 22:57, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/01/2014 22:06, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>>> Actually, the policy actually says the right thing, you removed a
>>>> sentence, which says:
>>>> "Please contact the oversight group for more details."
>>> To be clear, I didn't remove this sentence -- it's some way down in the
>>> paragraph and pertains to receiving details from the oversight group,
>>> whereas the section about providing notification pertains to "us", the
>>> This is grammatically clear and unambiguous so if it's not the intention,
>>> that needs to be reworded.
>> Don't take this the wrong way, but most people would still understand
>> that this probably means "don't talk about patents except to the
>> oversight group".
> Hi Dan,
> I'm not sure if you realize, but that paragraph reads as an open
> invitation to notify and discuss patents on the development and commits
> There are roughly no open source projects where the
>> rule is "talk about patents all you like on random development mailing
> There are plenty of projects around the world the where that is absolutely
> the rule.
> Your remarks suggest that you've worked on a limited range of projects
> without the perspective it takes to accurately word a developer policy like
> this for an international audience.
> "Most people" doesn't cut it here and we need to set out our expectations
> explicitly before we start turning away new contributors and telling them
> to "hit the road" for something they said.
> I can't stand by while new contributors receive abuse for some violation
> of a rule that's not even written in the LLVM developer policy.
> We should assume that contributors come from a background that's varied,
> inclusive and different to the norms in our immediate circles, and aim to
> provide them with accurate and helpful guidance in the developer policy and
> reflects our expectations. Flaming people when they try to engage our
> community because they have a different legal system or interpretation.
> What next, turn people away because they have a funny name? Reject patches
> because their skin color is different to yours? I'm disappointed that
> you've tried to defend what is clearly repeated and inexcusable behaviour
> by Chandler towards people who are graciously trying to help out. In so far
> as there is a community, we must stand up distance ourselves from behaviour
> like that.
> (This is becoming OT for cfe-dev, moving the thread to llvm-dev. Let's
> refocus into a more productive mode and and roll a patch already?)
> the browser experts
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev