[llvm-dev] The undef story

[Peter Lawrence via llvm-dev]

Sanjoy,
            you seem to be changing your story, when I first brought up the 
function-inlining example you argued about how I should not use C/C++ for such
programs, and that you were not fixing it for some reason related to how the IR is an
abstraction and C/C++ wasn’t your problem, I pushed you on the issue by saying
so lets translate the C example into IR and then talk about it, you went silent
after that. No response.

Same thing when I brought up the not hoisting a loop invariant divide out of
a loop, you were silent about that, leading me to believe that you were not
addressing that either.

What changed ?


Peter Lawrence.



> On Jun 28, 2017, at 11:26 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> is radically different from where LLVM is right now and the burden is
> on you to show that this end result is realistic.  The biggest hurdle
> of the new semantics was implementing it (many thanks to Juyeyoung Lee
> who did most of the hard work) to show that it actually works and does
> not regress performance.  You need to do the same thing for your
> proposal to sit at the same table.
> 
> -- Sanjoy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170629/4242b8e1/attachment.html>