[llvm-dev] The undef story

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Peter Lawrence <
> peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> I’m going to take a SWAG here and say that we probably haven’t entirely
>> thought this all through, or have we ?
>>
>
> We definitely have thought this through and have a very general answer
> that is surprisingly easy to describe with compiler jargon.
>

So, the email you replied to here Sean was not approved for the mailing
list.

The reason is pretty simple. It comes down to the sentence you're quoting
here. ANyways, I don't think we should really continue this discussion as
it seems to not be resulting in any progress (and other paths forward have
already been suggested). Moreover...


Peter, the language of your email has moved back outside of what is really
appropriate for the LLVM mailing lists.

If you want to know whether people have thought of something, just ask
politely. Please don't descend to things like (in your own words) wild
speculation about failure of LLVM developers to think through the work they
have done. That isn't constructive and isn't appropriate for the list.


But I want to reiterate: this discussion isn't productive. Paths forward
have been offered. Peter, the ball is in your court to implement your ideas
around undef. Continuing to debate here does *not* seem like a path
forward.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170713/7f8b30ba/attachment.html>