[cfe-dev] Status of SEH?
alp at nuanti.com
Thu Jan 30 16:57:45 PST 2014
On 31/01/2014 00:47, Jb Feldman wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for holding on. This has happened before so I'd like to point out
that Chandler Carruth, although a committer, doesn't speak for the project.
We should have done a better job of politely moving the discussion
towards a constructive conclusion providing some pointers towards the
right forum. I'm going to follow this up once the dust settles so we
have a better response in place.
> 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.
I think others will agree with me that we look forward to working on
this feature with you and earlier patch contributors when the time
comes. The feature would presumably cross into both projects so would be
appropriate as a cross-posting to both list.
Until that time comes I'd say it's expedient to focus on other areas.
Does that work for you?
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 LLVM
> 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
> 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 lists.
> There are roughly no open source projects where the
> rule is "talk about patents all you like on random development
> 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
> 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
> 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
> the browser experts
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
the browser experts
More information about the cfe-dev