search for: npes

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:16:47AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> The goals of this effort are outlined in the previous email but, in short, we aim to: >> - encourage ongoing contributions to LLVM by preserving low barrier to entry for contributors.

> > > > I’m still not completely convinced by this argument, given that the > majority of patent lawsuits come from NPEs. That is not necessarily where the majority of patent lawsuit *danger* comes from, and i'd argue, pretty strongly, it's not the most likely case for LLVM. > We’d still be in the situation where a malicious contributor could: > > 1. Spin up a new company to act as a NPE > 2...

Hi David, Sorry for the delay getting back to you, been a bit buried: On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:12 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> The TL;DR version of this is that I think we should discuss relicensing all of LLVM under the Apache 2.0 license and add a runtime exception clause. See below for a lot more details. > > I agree that this is a problem.

On 18 Oct 2015, at 23:08, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Supporting only basic block level granularity for "try ranges" may not > be sufficient for Java -- if a basic block has more than one null check > in it then throwing the NullPtrException for the first null check (if > it fails) is semantically different from throwing the

Hello everyone, This email is a continuation of a discussion started in October 2015, and continued in September 2016: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html As with those emails, this is a complicated topic and deals with sensitive legal issues. I am not a lawyer, and this email is not intended to be