[PATCH] Initial instrumentation based PGO implementation

Chris Lattner clattner at apple.com
Mon Jan 6 15:27:55 PST 2014

On Jan 6, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not what we've been doing for the last few years but if you're cool with it then…

Clearly if there are major structural problems with a patch, it isn’t appropriate, but a very common scenario is:

person a) "here’s a patch”
person b) “looks good, here are a bunch of little things to fix”
person a) “done and committed!”
person b) “woot”

If the feedback wasn’t incorporated right, the last line would be replaced with “wait, you need to do this too!” and if atrocious crimes are committed, then the patch gets reverted.  This is pretty standard with post-commit review.


> On Mon Jan 06 2014 at 3:15:54 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You should wait for an explicit ack on committing a patch if it's in review. It's a bit anti-social to do so otherwise and that people are waiting isn't a good enough reason to skip that.
> It is pretty common to commit after addressing a list of comments.  Continuously iterating on patches over the span of weeks isn’t the normal practice.
> -Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140106/c97d93f9/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list