[llvm] r294264 - [LVI] Switch from BFS to DFS exploration order

[Philip Reames via llvm-commits]

As the author of the change in question, I do not support merging it 
into the release branch.

Philip

On 02/21/2017 11:30 AM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
> I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the change; it sounds great
> to me. It's just that since it's a non-trivial change, and not fixing
> a regression from 3.9, I don't want to risk merging it this far into
> the release process (according to the schedule we should tag 'final'
> today).
>
> We'll get to enjoy this improvement in llvm 5 instead.
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>> FWIW: I mentioned he was welcome to try, but i did not have time to try to
>> verify the sanity of doing it.
>> As for riskiness, at this point, it's been tested on billions of lines of
>> code, (including entire os distro compiles).
>>
>> I'm not horribly worried about the percent chance it will cause regressions
>> in *compile time* (In fact, it'll likely be a huge net positive in almost
>> all cases), but i mostly agree with Hal that we should try to stick to stuff
>> that maybe hasn't had to have followups, and isn't basically a week or two
>> old.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-commits
>> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> ,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at bec.de> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 04:49:57PM -0800, Hans Wennborg wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-commits
>>>>> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:25:24AM -0000, Philip Reames via
>>>>>> llvm-commits wrote:
>>>>>>> Author: reames
>>>>>>> Date: Mon Feb  6 18:25:24 2017
>>>>>>> New Revision: 294264
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=294264&view=rev
>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>> [LVI] Switch from BFS to DFS exploration order
>>>>>> Thanks! Hans, any comment on merging this into 4.0? It fixes one of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> two remaining cases in pkgsrc where clang with normal optimiser
>>>>>> settings
>>>>>> hits 2GB VA.
>>>>> Well.. This just landed, and I don't think it's fixing a regression
>>>>> from 3.9. While the change sounds great, I think we should just let it
>>>>> go into the next release.
>>>> It's been a while and I still would like to see this and the follow-up
>>>> r294463 merged. That was discussed with Daniel Berlin already.
>>> I'm sorry, but I really do think this kind of change is too risky so
>>> late in the release process.
>>>
>>>   - Hans
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>