llvm dev - Mar 2016 - Need help with code generation

On 22 March 2016 at 16:02, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> > That's because we seem to be debating whether we'd
actively reject a
>> > patch to fix such issues, not how important they are to us to fix.
>>
>> I would not work on it. Including not review it while there are actual
>> missing features to be implemented.
>>
>>
>> If you want to call that a low priority bug, go for it. I don't
find
>> it honest to do that myself.
>
>
> I wouldn't call this a "low priority bug". If you would not
review patches
> to fix it (effectively blocking patches, I assume - I take it you would ask
> for such patches to be reverted if you hadn't reviewed/approved them?)
that
> seems different to how the rest of the LLVM community treats these sort of
> issues.
I agree. which is why I don't want to call it a bug.

But since having a bug open for years causes far less discussion than
otherwise I am fine with it as long people know I will retire long
before I get to it.

Cheers,
Rafael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:08 PM
> To: David Blaikie
> Cc: llvm-dev; Bruce Hoult
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Need help with code generation
> 
> On 22 March 2016 at 16:02, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-
> dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > That's because we seem to be debating whether we'd
actively reject a
> >> > patch to fix such issues, not how important they are to us to
fix.
> >>
> >> I would not work on it. Including not review it while there are
actual
> >> missing features to be implemented.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you want to call that a low priority bug, go for it. I
don't find
> >> it honest to do that myself.
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't call this a "low priority bug". If you would
not review
> patches
> > to fix it (effectively blocking patches, I assume - I take it you
would
> ask
> > for such patches to be reverted if you hadn't reviewed/approved
them?)
> that
> > seems different to how the rest of the LLVM community treats these
sort
> of
> > issues.
> 
> I agree. which is why I don't want to call it a bug.
> 
> But since having a bug open for years causes far less discussion than
> otherwise I am fine with it as long people know I will retire long
> before I get to it.
llvm.org/bugs has 7965 open bugs at the moment, and a month from now
the oldest one will have its 12th birthday.

"Nobody working on it" or even "I refuse to work on or review
it"
never mind "it's really old and nobody seems to care" is different
from "it's not a bug."

If LLD evolves into a library some of these issues will become more
consequential.  BFD has certainly had security patches in the past,
specifically to avoid mishandling purposely corrupt object files.
--paulr
> 
> Cheers,
> Rafael
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Robinson, Paul <
Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf
Of
> > Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:08 PM
> > To: David Blaikie
> > Cc: llvm-dev; Bruce Hoult
> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Need help with code generation
> >
> > On 22 March 2016 at 16:02, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-
> > dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > That's because we seem to be debating whether
we'd actively reject a
> > >> > patch to fix such issues, not how important they are to
us to fix.
> > >>
> > >> I would not work on it. Including not review it while there
are actual
> > >> missing features to be implemented.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If you want to call that a low priority bug, go for it. I
don't find
> > >> it honest to do that myself.
> > >
> > >
> > > I wouldn't call this a "low priority bug". If you
would not review
> > patches
> > > to fix it (effectively blocking patches, I assume - I take it you
would
> > ask
> > > for such patches to be reverted if you hadn't
reviewed/approved them?)
> > that
> > > seems different to how the rest of the LLVM community treats
these sort
> > of
> > > issues.
> >
> > I agree. which is why I don't want to call it a bug.
> >
> > But since having a bug open for years causes far less discussion than
> > otherwise I am fine with it as long people know I will retire long
> > before I get to it.
>
> llvm.org/bugs has 7965 open bugs at the moment, and a month from now
> the oldest one will have its 12th birthday.
>
> "Nobody working on it" or even "I refuse to work on or
review it"
> never mind "it's really old and nobody seems to care" is
different
> from "it's not a bug."
>
> If LLD evolves into a library some of these issues will become more
> consequential.  BFD has certainly had security patches in the past,
> specifically to avoid mishandling purposely corrupt object files.
>
Could you share links to some of those bugs - might be interesting to
see/compare.

> --paulr
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rafael
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20160322/d693891e/attachment.html>