[LLVMdev] [RFC] Stackmap and Patchpoint Intrinsic Proposal

[Eric Christopher]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> I recommend, this being the case, to replace 'webkit' with 'experimental'.
> Having webkit in the name implies some dependence on webkit, and there is
> none. Plus, this functionality will be used by outside projects as soon as
> it lands in trunk, and I suspect that having webkit in the initial name will
> end up as a naming incongruity that no one will really think is worth the
> effort to change.
>
>
> You’re correct that there is no dependence. I’m fine dropping the webkit
> name, but only if we can go straight to the final name (no need for
> “experimental”).
>
>
> I think that Hal's idea of "experimental" is the right approach here.  The
> major thing we want is to avoid having to be backwards compatible with this
> intrinsic in subsequent llvm releases.  "experimental" sends that message,
> where webkit does not (and is also bad for the reasons Hal mentions).
>
>
> What would be the criteria for eventually dropping 'experimental' from the
> intrinsic names?
>
>
> At the least, I'd like to get some experience on these.  Having webkit
> actually ship something based on this seems like a minimal requirement to
> demonstrate that it will actually work (end to end) in practice.  Beyond
> that, we'd want to be happy enough with it that we'd be willing to
> autoupgrade it if it ever evolves in future releases: i.e. we'd be promising
> backward compatibility with the intrinsic.
>

Sounds like excellent criteria for me on the name. Thanks Chris :)

-eric