[cfe-commits] r157483 - in /cfe/trunk: lib/CodeGen/CGCall.cpp test/CodeGen/alloc_size.c

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Tue May 29 10:09:58 PDT 2012

I don't really disagree with either your or Evan's meta points. =] I agree
something in this form *should* go into the tree.

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

> I definitely want this designed and implemented in the right way.

This is the key. I never saw a really good, complete design discussion on
the mailing lists. Instead, there was a very fragmented discussion spanning
several commit logs, with a bit of confusion. The questions asked on the
review of alloc_size and other parts of the system were never really
answered, and the discussion didn't really reach a clear consensus on

Kostya and others have tried to consolidate this discussion some, but I'm
looking for a bit more focus on discussing the design in the open, and
getting some consensus. I'm fine if commits* are flying concurrently in
order to keep making progress, but the design side of the discussion can't
be neglected. As examples, I would point to Bill's work on metadata or
exception handling, or Caitlin and Delesley's work on the thread-safety
attributes -- regardless of the desirability of these new features, I think
that they did a great job of proposing the design and engaging the
community in a discussion about the design so that everyone knew what was
going on and why.


[*] The commits should still get proper review. I think this commit should
probably have had pre-commit review as it doesn't seem "obvious", it isn't
to a nicely isolated optimization pass like BoundsChecking, and doesn't
seem to have had a blanket OK from a code-owner for CodeGen....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120529/506f4332/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list