<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 8:17 PM Mehdi AMINI <<a href="mailto:joker.eph@gmail.com">joker.eph@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 8:07 PM Tom Stellard <<a href="mailto:tstellar@redhat.com" target="_blank">tstellar@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 12/4/20 7:19 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:42 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <br>
> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> On 12/3/20 4:27 PM, Geoffrey Martin-Noble wrote:<br>
> > Apologies for the delayed response here. I was out of the "office".<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks for taking another look :-)<br>
> ><br>
> > I want to respond first to the process question of pitch vs RFC. My<br>
> > impression was that the pitch process should be used in the case<br>
> that an<br>
> > RFC couldn't reach consensus. I asked a few times in the last thread<br>
> ><br>
> (<a href="https://groups.google.com/g/llvm-dev/c/u07o3QREVUg/m/uVlV3pMTBAAJ" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/g/llvm-dev/c/u07o3QREVUg/m/uVlV3pMTBAAJ</a> and<br>
> > <a href="https://groups.google.com/g/llvm-dev/c/u07o3QREVUg/m/wF5mu-dpBAAJ" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/g/llvm-dev/c/u07o3QREVUg/m/wF5mu-dpBAAJ</a>)<br>
> > whether I should move this to a pitch, but feel like there wasn't a<br>
> > clear response in the context of Renato's support tiers RFC.<br>
> ><br>
> > It seems like Tom and Renato still disagree about whether I<br>
> should move<br>
> > this to a pitch. I would appreciate some consensus on that point at<br>
> > least :-D I do see the appeal of a living document for this sort of<br>
> > thing, so definitely see the appeal there, but also it seems like<br>
> the<br>
> > pitch process is a heavier-weight and more unusual one, so I was<br>
> > hesitant. My inclination is to continue this as an RFC unless we are<br>
> > unable to reach consensus on the issue as outlined in the pitch<br>
> process<br>
> > description. It does feel like this is really not quite as big a<br>
> > decision as you seem to be suggesting. It's also an easily<br>
> reversible<br>
> > one since there are no build dependencies and everything is<br>
> contained.<br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> I still think this should be a pitch. The original mailing list<br>
> discussion was controversial and that's when an RFC should be escalated<br>
> to a pitch according to: [1].<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> You may have missed it, but in the meantime there has been another RFC <br>
> clarifying our policy though: <a href="https://llvm.org/docs/SupportPolicy.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://llvm.org/docs/SupportPolicy.html</a><br>
> It seems fair to me to revisit this RFC as is in light of the policy change.<br>
> <br>
<br>
I don't think the questions about whether or not this should be included <br>
in the project are answered by this new policy. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'll quote the policy:</div><div><br></div><div><div>> Section: "What is covered"</div><div>> The peripheral tier is composed of:<br></div><div>> Experimental targets and options that haven’t been enable by default yet.</div><div>> Main repository projects that don’t get released or regularly tested.</div><div>> Legacy tools and scripts that aren’t used in upstream validation.</div><div>> <b>Alternative build systems (ex. GN, Bazel) and related infrastructure.</b></div></div><div><br></div><div>The intent of the policy is to cover exactly this proposal.</div><div> </div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">To me the part about <br>
how the bazel build files were going to be supported and what <br>
responsibility the community had for maintaining them was always very clear.<br>
<br>
> I'd actually like to request that the objections are reiterated and <br>
> positioned in terms of the policy before we escalate this.<br>
> <br>
<br>
I don't think it's really fair to ask people to re-object to the <br>
proposal. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why?</div><div>The objections were mostly answered and have been addressed in the policy. I don't quite get what you would put in a "pitch" while the informations are outdated by the policy.</div><div>On the contrary it seems not only fair to me, but necessary.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In my opinion, one of the problems with RFCs in the past is <br>
that they turn into an endurance test, because there is no process for <br>
making a decision. Either the proposer gets tired of asking and gives <br>
up or the objectors get tired of objecting and give up. We have a <br>
decision process now with the pitch process, and I think we should use it</blockquote><div><br></div><div>We have to use it when we can't do otherwise. And again, I disagree that this is a case without having objection formulated in light of the policy.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Another spin to it: the point of working on the policy and putting it in place was also to help make sure that such proposals aren't automatically controversial to the point where we can't resolve them. If the policy does not help us here, that's quite a failure IMO.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> <br>
> Thank you for responding to my technical concerns, and I agree that<br>
> working out most of those details may be better left for a patch review<br>
> discussion. But I think at least the presence of build information for<br>
> other projects and the sub-module alternative should be mentioned in<br>
> the<br>
> pitch.<br>
> <br>
> If there were only technical or support policy issues like these to<br>
> resolve then I don't think this would be controversial and require a<br>
> pitch.<br>
> <br>
> My main issue with this RFC, (which I tried to address at the end of my<br>
> previous mail), is the precedent this sets for what gets included in<br>
> tree. Essentially, we have a subset of our community that chose to<br>
> go a<br>
> different direction from upstream, as always there are costs and<br>
> benefits with this decision. The question for the community is do we<br>
> want to help or encourage this in the future by removing some of the<br>
> costs of these decisions and allowing alternative implementations to<br>
> live in tree.<br>
> <br>
> Maybe for build systems this is OK, and for other things this is not,<br>
> I don't know. But if we are going to be setting a precedent, to me,<br>
> the<br>
> best way to do this is through the pitch process.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Why are you considering this "setting a precedent" while there is <br>
> already GN in tree?<br>
> <br>
<br>
You are right we are not really setting a precedent here, because GN is <br>
already in tree. However, I don't think we should now just allow any <br>
build system to be added to the tree just because GN is there. We need <br>
to have some kind of process and criteria for deciding what gets added <br>
and what doesn't. I think a pitch will help accomplish this.<br>
<br>
I'll be honest, I don't really understand why there is so much push back <br>
on turning this into a pitch. Is it really that much extra work?<br>
<br>
-Tom<br>
<br>
> -- <br>
> Mehdi<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -Tom<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> [1]<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md</a><br>
> <br>
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:41 PM Tom Stellard <<a href="mailto:tstellar@redhat.com" target="_blank">tstellar@redhat.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tstellar@redhat.com" target="_blank">tstellar@redhat.com</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:tstellar@redhat.com" target="_blank">tstellar@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tstellar@redhat.com" target="_blank">tstellar@redhat.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > > This should have approximately the same impact on the<br>
> community<br>
> > as the<br>
> > > current GN build in `llvm/utils/gn` does today. That is, it<br>
> > should not<br>
> > > affect anyone who doesn't care.<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > I want to push back on this a little bit, because having the<br>
> code in<br>
> > tree does impact everyone, even people who don't care about<br>
> it. It<br>
> > increases disk usage, commit traffic, checkout times,<br>
> bugzilla / issue<br>
> > traffic, and CI builds to name a few things. There are costs<br>
> to having<br>
> > this in tree, the question (as always) is do the benefits<br>
> outweigh the<br>
> > costs?<br>
> ><br>
> > Yes my apologies that this was poorly phrased. I was aiming for a<br>
> pithy<br>
> > summary and a clear statement that our goal here is not to<br>
> significantly<br>
> > impact contributors uninterested in Bazel. My impression is that<br>
> the GN<br>
> > build has achieved that goal. I definitely agree that any<br>
> addition to<br>
> > the monorepo should have a clear weighing of costs vs benefits<br>
> and that<br>
> > the costs are never actually zero. I do think the costs here are<br>
> really<br>
> > quite low however. I am happy to address your concerns and also<br>
> think<br>
> > that it is important to note that if additional issues arise we are<br>
> > still agreeing to be on the hook for addressing them (e.g. if in<br>
> > practice this causes some unforseen issue with the release) and<br>
> deleting<br>
> > this contribution if we cannot do so in a timely manner (`rm -rf<br>
> > utils/bazel` is all it requires).<br>
> ><br>
> > Personally, I do not think we should have alternative build<br>
> systems in<br>
> > tree. However, I still think you should try to propose this<br>
> as a pitch.<br>
> > I would much rather this go through a fair process and land<br>
> than for it<br>
> > to be rejected based on a contentious thread.<br>
> ><br>
> > Here is why I'm not convinced this should be in tree:<br>
> ><br>
> > To me it's not clear why having the build files in-tree is<br>
> better than<br>
> > having a separate repo with an llvm-project sub-module. The<br>
> in tree<br>
> > bazel files will be broken from time to time, since most<br>
> developers will<br>
> > not be updating them, however, with the sub-module approach<br>
> you can<br>
> > ensure that the build will always work by pinning the llvm-bazel<br>
> > repo to<br>
> > a known-working commit of llvm-project. Can you expand on the<br>
> > pros/cons<br>
> > of in-tree vs out-of-tree with sub-modules.<br>
> ><br>
> > Out-of-tree with a submodule is the current approach we have with<br>
> > <a href="https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel</a>. It's certainly doable, but<br>
> > involves quite a bit of bookkeeping to track which version<br>
> corresponds<br>
> > to a given version of LLVM such that someone can fetch the correct<br>
> > configuration (you'll note that the repository has about 7k tags<br>
> at the<br>
> > moment). To make things somewhat more complicated, the typical<br>
> way to<br>
> > fetch something for use in Bazel is with an http_archive<br>
> ><br>
> <<a href="https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/repo/http.html#http_archive" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/repo/http.html#http_archive</a>> which<br>
> <br>
> > requires one to specify the archive digest to avoid refetching on<br>
> each<br>
> > build. This doesn't work particularly well with tags that change<br>
> which<br>
> > commit they point to. I'm not saying these issues aren't<br>
> solvable, but<br>
> > they add quite a bit of complexity.<br>
> ><br>
> > The other point is that I think this makes contributing to the Bazel<br>
> > configuration quite a bit more complex because you have to apply<br>
> patches<br>
> > across multiple repositories to also be kept in sync. Given that<br>
> LLVM<br>
> > has a monorepo, it still seems like the logical place for a build<br>
> > configuration of LLVM used by multiple projects.<br>
> ><br>
> > Other concerns I have from reviewing the patch:<br>
> ><br>
> > It seems like these are mostly concerns with the specific<br>
> > implementation. Would you be alright with saving the specific<br>
> details<br>
> > for an eventual review on the patch if this moves forward? I've made<br>
> > brief responses below.<br>
> ><br>
> > * It looks like there is a build configuration for at least one<br>
> > external<br>
> > project (zlib) and possibly another (vulkan-headers?). Do we<br>
> really<br>
> > want to have build configurations for non-LLVM projects in our<br>
> > tree? Is<br>
> > there any limit to the number of external projects that can<br>
> and will be<br>
> > added?<br>
> ><br>
> > These are dependencies of the LLVM Project and LLVM keeps its<br>
> > dependencies pretty tightly managed AFAIU. These configurations<br>
> are also<br>
> > pretty trivial, "here are the source files", type things, so I think<br>
> > it's even a bit generous to call them configurations: we're just<br>
> > informing Bazel where the files are located.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > * There are 3 files (abi-breaking.h.cmake, config.h.cmake,<br>
> > llvm-config.h.cmake) that have been copied from the llvm tree<br>
> into<br>
> > utils/bazel/, is there some way we can avoid carrying multiple<br>
> > copies of<br>
> > the same file in tree?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > * Similarly, there are some files that are normally generated<br>
> at build<br>
> > time clang/Config/config.h, llvm/Config/config.h,<br>
> > llvm/Config/llvm-config.h that have been copied into<br>
> utils/bazel.<br>
> > Is it<br>
> > really necessary<br>
> > to have these in tree? Especially since some of the<br>
> templates, like<br>
> > llvm-config.h.cmake, are also in utils/bazel?<br>
> ><br>
> > The copy here is pretty much orthogonal to the actual build<br>
> > configuration. The intent is to have a literal change detector<br>
> test for<br>
> > changes to these cmake configurations, since they would invalidate<br>
> > assumptions in the Bazel configuration. Chandler and I went back and<br>
> > forth on a few different ways to do this. We can certainly look<br>
> at other<br>
> > options. The issue is that I don't think there's actually a<br>
> useful way<br>
> > to interpret the .cmake template files since changes to them are<br>
> also<br>
> > made as changes to the cmake configuration and without these<br>
> being in<br>
> > sync the files just drift. Happy to discuss other options for how to<br>
> > handle this. We could, for instance, have some other process that<br>
> just<br>
> > looks at the git diff/log for these files.<br>
> ><br>
> > * I still worry about the bazel files causing merging<br>
> conflicts when<br>
> > backported to the stable branch. If these are added to tree,<br>
> could we<br>
> > have a rule where commits to utils/bazel/ cannot include<br>
> changes to<br>
> > other files?<br>
> ><br>
> > I'd certainly be open to discussing restrictions that would avoid<br>
> > additional burden on release managers. I think that one makes<br>
> > contributing to the Bazel configuration more difficult because you<br>
> > cannot do it as part of a patch that requires a change, but if it's<br>
> > something that would cause issues with the release then we can<br>
> avoid it.<br>
> > My intuition is that this wouldn't actually come up often,<br>
> however. For<br>
> > example, just looking at the gn directory I see several commits<br>
> in the<br>
> > last week that touch this and other files. Have you actually run<br>
> into<br>
> > issues? Since this is unsupported the conflicts could also be<br>
> resolved<br>
> > pretty much however you wanted (e.g. delete the conflict markers,<br>
> delete<br>
> > the file), so they seem pretty trivial to deal with if they only<br>
> happen<br>
> > occasionally. My preference would therefore be to see if this is<br>
> > actually a problem in practice before putting rules in place.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:27 AM Renato Golin <<a href="mailto:rengolin@gmail.com" target="_blank">rengolin@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rengolin@gmail.com" target="_blank">rengolin@gmail.com</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:rengolin@gmail.com" target="_blank">rengolin@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rengolin@gmail.com" target="_blank">rengolin@gmail.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Geoffrey,<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks for the re-submission.<br>
> ><br>
> > I have some comments below that may sound negative, but they're<br>
> > probably just a reflection of my own ignorance. I want to<br>
> make sure<br>
> > the submission is clear, so it can be accepted on its own right.<br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 03:02, Geoffrey Martin-Noble via llvm-dev<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > This should not affect development of core tier components.<br>
> > One reason we propose adding this to the root utils/<br>
> directory<br>
> > instead of under llvm/utils (where GN is located) is to avoid<br>
> > unnecessarily sending messages to llvm-commits. Others have<br>
> > raised the concern that the existence of an alternative build<br>
> > system might lead to lack of maintenance for the CMake build<br>
> > system. Given that supporting CMake will remain a requirement<br>
> > and maintenance of a Bazel build system will continue to<br>
> happen<br>
> > regardless, we do not expect any significant impact in<br>
> this way.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I was under the impression that "utils" was actually<br>
> "llvm/utils",<br>
> > which would be in the same place as GN. I don't think we should<br>
> > treat GN and Bazel as different and I really wouldn't like to<br>
> have a<br>
> > different quality control (for post commit reviews).<br>
> ><br>
> > If the Bazel commits are too verbose (for example, committing<br>
> > auto-generated code), then we should really clean that up and<br>
> commit<br>
> > the script that generates them and make that part of the build.<br>
> ><br>
> > I understand the need to move the noise away, but move it too far<br>
> > away and it's no better than in a separate repo.<br>
> ><br>
> > I am happy to put this in either location and agree it should be<br>
> in the<br>
> > same place as GN. If we were to decide that it should go `utils/`<br>
> then I<br>
> > would also propose we move GN to there as well. I believe the GN<br>
> files<br>
> > were contributed prior to the existence of the monorepo, so a<br>
> top-level<br>
> > `utils/` wouldn't have been an option. I think living under the root<br>
> > `utils/` directory makes more sense because these are not<br>
> configurations<br>
> > for only the LLVM subproject (we also build MLIR and Clang with<br>
> perhaps<br>
> > more to come). I believe it was Mehdi's suggestion that this<br>
> would help<br>
> > mitigate some of the costs to having it in the monorepo because Tom<br>
> > mentioned commit list traffic as a concern. I don't think I agree<br>
> that<br>
> > one directory up is akin to a separate repo though :-D<br>
> ><br>
> > That said, this is a really minor point for me. I'm happy to put<br>
> this<br>
> > wherever people prefer :-)<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > A number of people raised the question of "why not a separate<br>
> > repository". This is indeed possible: It's what we've<br>
> done with<br>
> > <a href="https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel</a>, which is currently used by<br>
> > <a href="https://github.com/google/iree" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/google/iree</a>. It is significantly more<br>
> > infrastructure, coordination, and complexity for<br>
> something that<br>
> > is specifically a configuration for the LLVM project<br>
> itself, not<br>
> > its own dependent or adjacent project.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I was also under the impression that one of the big reasons<br>
> why we<br>
> > needed it to be in LLVM is that, like CMake, it needed files all<br>
> > over the place. This would indeed be a major infrastructure<br>
> undertaking.<br>
> ><br>
> > But given that it's all being hosted in a single directory, and<br>
> > outside of the LLVM tree, I really can't see what's so much<br>
> harder<br>
> > about an extra checkout in the same tree.<br>
> ><br>
> > Bazel *wants* the build files to be all over the place, but I've<br>
> tricked<br>
> > it with some repository rule symlinking. That's also true of the<br>
> LLVM GN<br>
> > configuration, I believe. My assumption is that having BUILD files<br>
> > actually throughout the repository would be something that would<br>
> receive<br>
> > quite a bit of pushback and would be confusing for people who would<br>
> > naturally expect these BUILD files to be maintained as a<br>
> supported build<br>
> > system. I would happily put a BUILD.bazel file at the root of each<br>
> > subproject and drop the symlinking madness, but I suspect this<br>
> would not<br>
> > be embraced as a solution ;-P<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I believe this contribution will significantly improve the<br>
> > situation for downstream users that use Bazel while having<br>
> > minimal impact on the community at large.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > It's not clear to me yet if LLVM/Bazel is only used in Google<br>
> > projects or any other non-Google project. All that you listed<br>
> so far<br>
> > seem to be exclusive to Google.<br>
> ><br>
> > This is not a problem per se, but it does promote the idea that<br>
> > Google could common it up internally instead.<br>
> ><br>
> > The main reasons why it would be upstream are that it's either a<br>
> > product by or requirement to the project itself, or it helps<br>
> unite<br>
> > cross-industry collaboration that wouldn't be possible otherwise.<br>
> ><br>
> > It's clearly not the former (and why it's in the periphery tier),<br>
> > but it's also not clear it's in the latter either.<br>
> ><br>
> > I can really only speak for Google projects. I have also noticed<br>
> several<br>
> > other Bazel build configurations in the wild, e.g. PlaidML<br>
> ><br>
> <<a href="https://github.com/plaidml/plaidml/blob/master/vendor/llvm/llvm.BUILD" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/plaidml/plaidml/blob/master/vendor/llvm/llvm.BUILD</a>> (Intel)<br>
> <br>
> > or this bazel_llvm<br>
> <<a href="https://github.com/ChrisCummins/bazel_llvm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ChrisCummins/bazel_llvm</a>> project<br>
> > that I found after someone contributed a doc fix. I believe in<br>
> the last<br>
> > thread someone from Facebook mentioned that Bazel build files<br>
> would also<br>
> > be relatively easily translatable to their internal Bazel-derived<br>
> build<br>
> > system, Buck. Someone from Lyft also expressed interest in using<br>
> a Bazel<br>
> > build configuration if it was in-tree. But I can't really speak<br>
> to the<br>
> > motivations, road maps, etc. for any of these people, companies, or<br>
> > projects (if you're reading, please chime in ;-P).<br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>