Chandler,
I am not a “politically correct” person, never have been, never
will be.
If you are waiting for me to make a politically incorrect statement so you can
jump
on it, let me assure you that you will never be disappointed.
But if that’s all you do then you and llvm lose out. If you want to actually
help
llvm move forward then you should judge what I say based on its merit, not on
its
delivery.
The thing I will agree with you about is that people on this list are well
intentioned.
But I still don’t believe my description of “poison” has ever been discussed
before,
you were will intentioned in saying it has, but there is no reason to believe it
has,
because every time I dig deeper into these issues I run into mis-conceptions and
mis-information. Faulty analysis based on faulty assumptions. Every time. If I
sound
hyperbolic it is because I have gotten frustrated from continually running into
this.
And before you claim that I have insulted Dan, you might want to get his
opinion on the subject. My bet is he will react by saying “why didn’t I think
of that”, but in spite of my trying to contact him I have gotten no response.
Perhaps you will have better luck.
Finally, regarding John, when I pushed on the function-inlining example,
rather than responding to it he lashed out at me. That is unprofessional.
I said nothing about it at the time because I try to refrain from
meta-discussions.
But it is another reason why I sound so hyperbolic.
Now, getting back to technical, I’m waiting for some C source code examples
showing how "Current transformations made by LLVM require [posion]”
Peter Lawrence.
> On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:47 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:33 PM Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at
sbcglobal.net <mailto:peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
> Chandler,
> where we disagree is in whether the current project is
moving the issue
> forward. It is not. It is making the compiler more complex for no
additional value.
>
> I mean, I also disagree with your analysis of where we disagree, and what
is happening, but I don't think that matters much or will convince you of
anything.
>
> The current project perpetuates the myth that “poison” is somehow required.
>
> No one thinks it is required at a theoretical level. Current
transformations made by LLVM require it. We could always disable those
transformations. The current project is attempting to see if there is a
pragmatic set of transformations we can keep with a better definition.
>
> It isn’t, and when I show proof of that you reply with “its in bug reports,
etc”,
> that’s BS and you know it, this hasn’t been explored.
>
> I'm sorry that I didn't have readily available citations in the
other thread. If you can show what searches you have done that didn't find
any results, I'm happy to try and help find them. But the way you say this
doesn't come across as assuming good faith on the part of myself and others
in these discussions. Within the LLVM community, please always assume good faith
and don't accuse people of "BS".
>
> Dan created “poison” on a whim, and people picked up on it too
> without question. We’ve been stuck with this self-inflicted wound ever
since, and it is
> time to heal it.
>
> The way you have described this comes across as both hyperbolic and
insulting to specific individuals.
>
> This kind of behavior and rhetoric is not acceptable in the LLVM community,
and multiple people have asked you to change tone and avoid this behavior.
Bluntly, stop.
>
> John and I do not have a technical disagreement, John is having an
emotional
> reaction to the fact that he doesn’t have an answer to the
function-inlining question.
>
> This is yet another personal attack in your email.
>
> After talking to several people involved in these threads, I think that
whatever technical points you are trying to make have been completely lost due
to the repeated pattern of apparent hostility. Your emails are perceived as
insulting and attacking people which is not an appropriate or professional way
to engage in a technical discussion here.
>
> The attitude and approach you are taking on the list is completely
incompatible with this community and project.
>
> I still encourage you to modify LLVM and implement your approach. It is
open source and easy to fork on GitHub. However, please don't continue
sending emails to LLVM lists until you can do so without repeating this
behavior.
>
> -Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170628/646542a8/attachment.html>
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:46 PM Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:> Chandler, > I am not a “politically correct” person, never have been, > never will be. > If you are waiting for me to make a politically incorrect statement so you > can jump > on it, let me assure you that you will never be disappointed. > > But if that’s all you do then you and llvm lose out. If you want to > actually help > llvm move forward then you should judge what I say based on its merit, not > on its > delivery. >I don't care if you call it "politically correct" (I wouldn't), but you will have to find a way to deliver what you say in a way others don't perceive as attacking them, insulting them, and being hostile. Those are the baseline requirements to participate in this community and work on this project. As I said before, you are always free to work on other compiler projects or start your own if you find this community not to your liking. Open source is a big place. =]> > The thing I will agree with you about is that people on this list are well > intentioned. > But I still don’t believe my description of “poison” has ever been > discussed before, > you were will intentioned in saying it has, but there is no reason to > believe it has, > because every time I dig deeper into these issues I run into > mis-conceptions and > mis-information. Faulty analysis based on faulty assumptions. Every time. > If I sound > hyperbolic it is because I have gotten frustrated from continually running > into this. >I understand you are frustrated, but I have said on several occasions that repeating yourself is not helpful.> Now, getting back to technical, I’m waiting for some C source code examples > showing how "Current transformations made by LLVM require [posion]” >I'm sorry, but given the tone and approach you have taken, I don't have time, energy, or motivation to continue to invest here. I'm going back to other things. Having read all of these threads, I am thoroughly convinced by the positions put forward by others. My advice to you in my first email stands. If you want to make progress, more emails will not help. I encourage you to start writing code and demonstrating through specific proposed modifications (likely prototyped on a local branch or GitHub fork) and demonstrate clear evidence of the improved reliability without degraded performance of benchmarks. I think that is your path forward, and I don't plan on continuing to engage in what comes off to me as a hostile and repetitive email thread (this one, and the others you have started). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170629/99d08ed1/attachment.html>
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: <snip />> I'm sorry, but given the tone and approach you have taken, I don't have > time, energy, or motivation to continue to invest here. I'm going back to > other things. Having read all of these threads, I am thoroughly convinced > by the positions put forward by others. > > My advice to you in my first email stands. If you want to make progress, > more emails will not help. I encourage you to start writing code and > demonstrating through specific proposed modifications (likely prototyped on > a local branch or GitHub fork) and demonstrate clear evidence of the > improved reliability without degraded performance of benchmarks. > > I think that is your path forward, and I don't plan on continuing to > engage in what comes off to me as a hostile and repetitive email thread > (this one, and the others you have started). >Hey! Can we all just reset our hurt feelings and get back to the issue for a minute. /* Chandler being a dick is my job and you can't have it, ok? Snarky intelligence comments masked in a thin veil of rudeness is no better than the things I typically do. */ -------------------- All half jokes aside... I'd like to politely ask for whoever is capable of putting their ego aside for a minute and re-approach things from a pure technical perspective. #1 Is there technical merit to what Peter is trying to convey? if yes please reset. Shouldn't we all be a little empathetic to the engineers who are brilliant, but sometimes have a few rough edges? If the tone of an email comes across the wrong way, I thought there was an established way to try to positively handle the situation? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170629/7aecbc65/attachment.html>
> > 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.
On 06/28/2017 11:46 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote:> Chandler, > I am not a “politically correct” person, never have > been, never will be. > If you are waiting for me to make a politically incorrect statement so > you can jump > on it, let me assure you that you will never be disappointed.Peter, let me be perfectly clear: We insist on a certain level of decorum on this list. You're over the line. We treat each other here with civility and respect. This is spelled out in more detail in our code of conduct: http://llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.html> But if that’s all you do then you and llvm lose out. If you want to > actually help > llvm move forward then you should judge what I say based on its merit, > not on its > delivery.That is not our view. There are certain methods of delivery that are inappropriate. Does this mean that the community might miss out on technical advancement? Possibly. But we're willing to pay that price. -Hal -- Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory