[LLVMdev] We need better hashing

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Sat Feb 18 13:26:56 PST 2012

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

> My advise is to check in when you have to make forward progress.  If
> people want to reshave your yak into another hairdo, then then can do that
> at some later time.  No reason to block your progress as long as the API is
> good.

I was trying to give feedback on the API, and specifically suggest an
alternative that might be both easier to use, and naturally dovetail with
an upcoming standard. =/ Is there no interest in this? I'm happy to
contribute an implementation using this API (we'll need to implement it
anyways), but I'm actually not interested in just shaving yaks. I'm
interested in getting a really good API here, because this is the support
library that is usually held to a very high bar for APIs...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120218/09dd05bd/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list