[llvm-commits] [llvm] r85295 - in /llvm/trunk: docs/tutorial/LangImpl4.html docs/tutorial/OCamlLangImpl4.html include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/ExecutionEngine.h lib/ExecutionEngine/ExecutionEngine.cpp lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JIT.cpp lib/ExecutionEngi

[Jeffrey Yasskin]

Look good?

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 27, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Author: jyasskin
>>>>> Date: Tue Oct 27 15:30:28 2009
>>>>> New Revision: 85295
>>>>>
>>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=85295&view=rev
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> Change the JIT to compile eagerly by default as agreed in
>>>>> http://llvm.org/PR5184, and beef up the comments to describe what both
>>>>> options
>>>>> do and the risks of lazy compilation in the presence of threads.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jeffrey,
>>>>
>>>> In the future I'd prefer API changes be agreed upon by the greater
>>>> community, not just in a bugzilla report.
>>>
>>> Sorry about that. Do you want me to revert this until we can ping llvmdev?
>>>
>>>> Lazy compilation is being used by some important clients. They will be
>>>> caught off guard by this change. Does this change lli default behavior?
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't change lli's default, although that was an accident on
>>> my part (maybe a fortunate accident). I did ping llvmdev last week
>>> asking people who use the lazy JIT to look at the bug report, but I
>>> can see how people who don't use threads with the JIT would think it
>>> didn't apply to them.
>>
>> Sorry, I have been too busy with other things so I didn't follow the thread.
>>
>> The patch changed DisableLazyCompilation to EnableLazyCompilation, which is
>> minor but it's a API change nevertheless.  That means clients which are
>> using 2.6 have to change their code in order to test against tot. Unless
>> this is absolutely necessary, I'd prefer not to change it.
>
> It's not necessary. I'd like to keep the new query method since it
> removes some double-negatives inside the JIT, but they can easily live
> alongside each other for the 2.7 release.
>
> I'll send a patch renaming Enable... back to Disable... and adding the
> old query method back.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: revert-api-change.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20091027/13badc4f/attachment.obj>