[llvm-dev] The undef story

[C Bergström via llvm-dev]

Peter - Is there bug reports on each of the issues you're referencing. It
may be best to ensure that there is and continue the technical discussion
on each on their own merit (case by case). This could be a deep rabbit
hole, but slowly tackling things point by point is probably the only way to
end up with a positive conclusion.

A different way to view this - If your opinion on what's technically best
and what they view isn't aligned and they will block you overwriting their
approach - try to see if an alternative can co-exists and introduce it as a
flag. UD is such a religious argument that disagreements are bound to
happen.



On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Peter Lawrence via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
> >
> > Having read all of these threads, I am thoroughly convinced by the
> positions put forward by others.
> >
>
> Chandler,
>                others have decided to let the compiler continue
> mis-compiling the
> function-inlining example, others have decided to not fix the inability to
> hoist
> a loop invariant divide out of a loop. It sounds like you haven’t even
> thought
> about these things let alone be convinced by anything.  Am I missing
> something
> or have you forgotten what we are talking about here ?
>
>
> Peter Lawrence.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170629/180e5980/attachment.html>