[llvm-dev] [lld] r271569 - Start adding tlsdesc support for aarch64.
Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jun 3 11:16:29 PDT 2016
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>> On 3 June 2016 at 17:10, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>
>> > Do keep in mind you are comparing a 11 year old project and a 11 month
>> > old one. There is a lot more churn on the 11 month old one.
>> LLD is at least 5 years old. Every time you re-write it doesn't reset
>> > Again, I am truly sorry we were unable to come up with a perfect
>> > design the first time. For the record, I don't think it is perfect
>> > yet. There will likely be more big changes to lld. That is the cost of
>> > trying to build as good a linker as we can.
>> This is not about what you do. It's about *how* you do it.
>> We have developers trying to create a linker. They are working on LLD
>> because Chris wanted a true LLVM linker. But it seems that you want a
>> project that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want.
>> This is *NOT* open source. Right now, LLD is *nothing more* than Rui's
>> and Rafael's pet project. I cannot recommend Linaro to collaborate on
>> those terms, and I sincerely recommend anyone that is listening to
>> this thread to not do so either.
> Renato, it is not appropriate to call it my and Rafael's pet project.
> First of all, Rafael and me are working on it for different purposes and
> probably have different visions (although our taste on good code and good
> design seems similar.) I'm interested in using it in my company and on
> FreeBSD, for example. Rafael and I have no side channel to communicate, and
> we are just collaborating openly on this mailing list.
> You overlooked a lot of contributions that has been made to LLD. George
> designed and wrote a great deal of relocation handling code and TLS
> optimizations besides other contributions. Peter came up with a different
> symbol table design, sent a proposal to the mailing list for discussion,
> and implemented it (even though Peter and I are working for the same
> company, that was not a coordinated effort, and the design change proposal
> was out of the blue to me. I was surprised by his improvement.) Simon
> implemented all of MIPS code that's pretty tricky. Davide is contributing
> to AArch64 and LTO. There are many more contributors. I'm truly respectful
> to all the contributors, and attributing these efforts to someone's pet
> project is honestly a bit insulting.
> I have never declined contributions by saying that "I know better." I
> requested design documents (because I don't know better!) when contributors
> seem to be starting large design changes, but that was needed for
> discussion. If you want to do some large change, you want to convince other
> collaborators that your design will work. It is I think a usual process.
> Needless to say, I don't think I (and Rafael) should get a special
> treatment. Both do not have right to submit without convincing other
> collaborators. For example, just last week, I sent a patch which I truly
> believed non-controversial and good one for review, and got rejected
> unexpectedly by Sean. I had to convince him. That's how it works.
> I sincerely request you to retract your recommendation to not collaborate
> with us.
> I'm not protecting what Rafael did. Rafael, even if you think your patch
> had less common with the patch that's under review, they overlapped each
> other with a great deal. Reviewing one patch and submitting a conflicting
> one at the same time is not an appropriate behavior, and I do understand
> why it disappointed Adhemerval and Renato. You needed to send it to review
> and explain yours if you believe yours is different and better.
> > Being open source doesn't mean I get to implement what someone else
>> > wants. You are more than welcome to send patches, but they have avoid
>> > harming the rest of the linker. In particular, at this early stage
>> > they cannot harm its development. Once we have a mature project we can
>> > actually evaluate tradeoff.
>> We're clearly not welcome to send patches. We did, and you re-wrote it
>> and committed without asking the original author.
>> So, the plan is to wait for you to finish the initial implementation
>> alone? Again? What do we do in the interim? How many times are we
>> going to go through this?
>> I have waited 2 years before LLD was barely useful, then Adhemerval
>> implemented the AArch64 back-end. Then you destroyed and now we have
>> waited another year, but we're still unable to collaborate. If
>> anything, now it's even harder than it was last year.
>> Why can't we help with the design, too? We know about ARM and AArch64,
>> that's what we do, and we can provide you with the expertise without
>> having to go on your own doing everything. That is the whole point of
>> collaborative development, and it seems that you're missing this
>> > And just like we did, you are more than welcome to try to write
>> > something better. Please let us know how it goes.
>> Is this the position of every LLD developer?
> I cannot say about every developer, but at least to me, my answer is yes,
> of course.
Oh, wait! I may have been misread the sentence. I read "write better code
in LLD to replace existing part of LLD". I had totally no intention to say
that you should try something outside LLD. I'm sorry for the confusion.
Rui, Nick, Chris?
>> I'm seriously looking for others to chime in and let me know if that
>> is the final stance on LLD, so that I can finally write it off and go
>> work on another linker.
>> If the official position is that LLD is a project that only Rui and
>> Rafael can design and implement for another 2~3 years, I *cannot*
>> recommend Linaro and its members to participate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev