[llvm-dev] Need help with code generation

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Robinson, Paul <
Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> > Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:08 PM
> > To: David Blaikie
> > Cc: llvm-dev; Bruce Hoult
> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Need help with code generation
> >
> > On 22 March 2016 at 16:02, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-
> > dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > That's because we seem to be debating whether we'd actively reject a
> > >> > patch to fix such issues, not how important they are to us to fix.
> > >>
> > >> I would not work on it. Including not review it while there are actual
> > >> missing features to be implemented.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If you want to call that a low priority bug, go for it. I don't find
> > >> it honest to do that myself.
> > >
> > >
> > > I wouldn't call this a "low priority bug". If you would not review
> > patches
> > > to fix it (effectively blocking patches, I assume - I take it you would
> > ask
> > > for such patches to be reverted if you hadn't reviewed/approved them?)
> > that
> > > seems different to how the rest of the LLVM community treats these sort
> > of
> > > issues.
> >
> > I agree. which is why I don't want to call it a bug.
> >
> > But since having a bug open for years causes far less discussion than
> > otherwise I am fine with it as long people know I will retire long
> > before I get to it.
>
> llvm.org/bugs has 7965 open bugs at the moment, and a month from now
> the oldest one will have its 12th birthday.
>
> "Nobody working on it" or even "I refuse to work on or review it"
> never mind "it's really old and nobody seems to care" is different
> from "it's not a bug."
>
> If LLD evolves into a library some of these issues will become more
> consequential.  BFD has certainly had security patches in the past,
> specifically to avoid mishandling purposely corrupt object files.
>

Could you share links to some of those bugs - might be interesting to
see/compare.


> --paulr
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rafael
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160322/d693891e/attachment.html>