[llvm-dev] The undef story
Sean Silva via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jul 13 15:40:30 PDT 2017
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> 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
> 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).
I think there have been a number of examples in this thread of stuff that
while it didn't really help this discussion forward per se, it help
articulate some interesting piece of information that not all onlookers
(especially newbies) would easily be exposed to (Hal's awesome example,
John's post about refinement, etc.). I was only really replying in that
sense. If I'd known that it didn't make it through to the mailing list I
wouldn't have bothered to reply.
I agree though, until Peter or someone else actually steps up to the plate
to implement a potential alternative approach, this discussion here per se
isn't going anywhere.
-- Sean Silva
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev