<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Chandler,<div class=""> I am puzzled by the statement "Current transformations made by LLVM require it.”</div><div class="">Can you clarify with a C source code example ?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Peter Lawrence.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:47 PM, Chandler Carruth <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@gmail.com" class="">chandlerc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:33 PM Peter Lawrence <<a href="mailto:peterl95124@sbcglobal.net" class="">peterl95124@sbcglobal.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Chandler,<div class=""> where we disagree is in whether the current project is moving the issue</div><div class="">forward. It is not. It is making the compiler more complex for no additional value.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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 anything.</div><div class=""> <br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">The current project perpetuates the myth that “poison” is somehow required.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class=""></div><div class="">It isn’t, and when I show proof of that you reply with “its in bug reports, etc”,</div><div class="">that’s BS and you know it, this hasn’t been explored.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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".</div><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">Dan created “poison” on a whim, and people picked up on it too<br class=""></div><div class="">without question. We’ve been stuck with this self-inflicted wound ever since, and it is</div><div class="">time to heal it.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The way you have described this comes across as both hyperbolic and insulting to specific individuals.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. Bluntly, stop.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">John and I do not have a technical disagreement, John is having an emotional<br class=""></div><div class="">reaction to the fact that he doesn’t have an answer to the function-inlining question.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This is yet another personal attack in your email.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The attitude and approach you are taking on the list is completely incompatible with this community and project.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class="inbox-inbox-Apple-interchange-newline"></div><div class="">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 behavior.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Chandler</div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>