[llvm] r294264 - [LVI] Switch from BFS to DFS exploration order

[Hans Wennborg via llvm-commits]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the change; it sounds great
to me. It's just that since it's a non-trivial change, and not fixing
a regression from 3.9, I don't want to risk merging it this far into
the release process (according to the schedule we should tag 'final'
today).

We'll get to enjoy this improvement in llvm 5 instead.

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
> FWIW: I mentioned he was welcome to try, but i did not have time to try to
> verify the sanity of doing it.
> As for riskiness, at this point, it's been tested on billions of lines of
> code, (including entire os distro compiles).
>
> I'm not horribly worried about the percent chance it will cause regressions
> in *compile time* (In fact, it'll likely be a huge net positive in almost
> all cases), but i mostly agree with Hal that we should try to stick to stuff
> that maybe hasn't had to have followups, and isn't basically a week or two
> old.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-commits
> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> ,
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at bec.de> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 04:49:57PM -0800, Hans Wennborg wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-commits
>> >> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:25:24AM -0000, Philip Reames via
>> >> > llvm-commits wrote:
>> >> >> Author: reames
>> >> >> Date: Mon Feb  6 18:25:24 2017
>> >> >> New Revision: 294264
>> >> >>
>> >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=294264&view=rev
>> >> >> Log:
>> >> >> [LVI] Switch from BFS to DFS exploration order
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks! Hans, any comment on merging this into 4.0? It fixes one of
>> >> > the
>> >> > two remaining cases in pkgsrc where clang with normal optimiser
>> >> > settings
>> >> > hits 2GB VA.
>> >>
>> >> Well.. This just landed, and I don't think it's fixing a regression
>> >> from 3.9. While the change sounds great, I think we should just let it
>> >> go into the next release.
>> >
>> > It's been a while and I still would like to see this and the follow-up
>> > r294463 merged. That was discussed with Daniel Berlin already.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I really do think this kind of change is too risky so
>> late in the release process.
>>
>>  - Hans
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
>