[llvm-dev] The undef story
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 28 18:47:04 PDT 2017
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:33 PM Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net>
> where we disagree is in whether the current project is
> moving the issue
> forward. It is not. It is making the compiler more complex for no
> additional value.
I mean, I also disagree with your analysis of where we disagree, and what
is happening, but I don't think that matters much or will convince you of
> The current project perpetuates the myth that “poison” is somehow required.
No one thinks it is required at a theoretical level. Current
transformations made by LLVM require it. We could always disable those
transformations. The current project is attempting to see if there is a
pragmatic set of transformations we can keep with a better definition.
> It isn’t, and when I show proof of that you reply with “its in bug
> reports, etc”,
> that’s BS and you know it, this hasn’t been explored.
I'm sorry that I didn't have readily available citations in the other
thread. If you can show what searches you have done that didn't find any
results, I'm happy to try and help find them. But the way you say this
doesn't come across as assuming good faith on the part of myself and others
in these discussions. Within the LLVM community, please always assume good
faith and don't accuse people of "BS".
> Dan created “poison” on a whim, and people picked up on it too
> without question. We’ve been stuck with this self-inflicted wound ever
> since, and it is
> time to heal it.
The way you have described this comes across as both hyperbolic and
insulting to specific individuals.
This kind of behavior and rhetoric is not acceptable in the LLVM community,
and multiple people have asked you to change tone and avoid this behavior.
John and I do not have a technical disagreement, John is having an
> reaction to the fact that he doesn’t have an answer to the
> function-inlining question.
This is yet another personal attack in your email.
After talking to several people involved in these threads, I think that
whatever technical points you are trying to make have been completely lost
due to the repeated pattern of apparent hostility. Your emails are
perceived as insulting and attacking people which is not an appropriate or
professional way to engage in a technical discussion here.
The attitude and approach you are taking on the list is completely
incompatible with this community and project.
I still encourage you to modify LLVM and implement your approach. It is
open source and easy to fork on GitHub. However, please don't continue
sending emails to LLVM lists until you can do so without repeating this
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev