> > 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.
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>
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:53 PM Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net> 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 ? >Please stop with (what I can only interpret as) personal attacks. I haven't forgotten what we are talking about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170629/18cd7f5c/attachment.html>
Chandler, Al right then, stay on topic, what do you actually think should be done about the fact that the current proposal will mis-compile the function-inlining example, and won’t be able to hoist a loop-invariat divide out of a loop. Peter Lawrence.> On Jun 28, 2017, at 11:03 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:53 PM Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net <mailto:peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net>> 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 ? > > Please stop with (what I can only interpret as) personal attacks. I haven't forgotten what we are talking about.-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170628/cda1eec9/attachment.html>
Peter, I strongly suggest that you take a break from this email thread and careful consider the points Chandler has made about community norms and expectations before returning to this discussion. Chandler has been exceedingly patient with explaining why your behaviour is problematic and made several concrete suggestions as to productive next steps you should take. You are actively violating the community expectations around interaction on the public mailing lists. Your behaviour on this thread is not acceptable and must stop. Philip On 06/28/2017 11:03 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:53 PM Peter Lawrence > <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net <mailto:peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net>> 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 ? > > > Please stop with (what I can only interpret as) personal attacks. I > haven't forgotten what we are talking about. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20170628/850d088a/attachment.html>