[llvm-dev] the root cause is CP, was: A tagged architecture, the elephant in the undef / poison room

[Peter Lawrence via llvm-dev]

John,
         The function inlining example is not addressed by
the current proposal. are you choosing to not look into it ?,
if so that’s not “making progress"

Peter Lawrence.



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:14 AM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:35:41 -0600
> From: John Regehr via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] the root cause is CP, was: A tagged
> 	architecture, the elephant in the undef / poison room
> Message-ID: <b82c864f-dfe9-79c6-c2f1-66b57acd572d at cs.utah.edu <mailto:b82c864f-dfe9-79c6-c2f1-66b57acd572d at cs.utah.edu>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> Peter, you mischaracterized what I said, you mischaracterized (below) 
> what Nuno said, and you don't appear to be listening to anything people 
> are saying.
> 
> I'll request (yet again) that you tone it down -- we're trying to make 
> progress on some real problems with LLVM's undefined behavior model and 
> you are hurting the conversation, not helping it.
> 
> Regardless, I'm done arguing with you.
> 
> John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170621/63e0c5da/attachment.html>