[PATCH] D114186: [lld][CMake] Add LLD_DEFAULT_NOSTART_STOP_GC

Tue Nov 30 17:58:57 PST 2021

tstellar added a comment.

In D114186#3162948 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114186#3162948>, @MaskRay wrote:

> In D114186#3159538 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114186#3159538>, @tstellar wrote:
>
>> I'm asking for the behavior to be changed back, because 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> goes against the LLVM developer policy.    If you want to make a technical argument about why 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> should stay in, then you need to convince @jrtc27 and others who object to this change to drop their objections and state that on one of the reviews.
>
> @tstellar This claim will harm my fame so I have to defend.
>
> bd1976llvm gave me this in April:
> "Thanks for the warning about changing the default to -z start-stop-gc. I have read your excellent blog entry explaining about it 🙂 This doesn't seem to cause any problems with the test code I have. I think we are pretty happy with the change given that we can offer work-arounds in the rare case that any games are affected. If we find any interesting problems caused by -z start-stop-gc I will let you know."
> Then-Facebook was informed in February.
> @dim and @emaste were informed in March 1. The initial message I sent to them used "In a future release" not saying 13.0.0 was my mistake. And giving a second-round heads-up when the change was pushed was my mistake, too.
>
> As a hindsight, it'd be much better if I created a patch CCing all the relevant folks, and I screwed up something (and clearly failed on ldc/NetworkManager) but I don't necessarily agree with your  LLVM developer policy claim.

Here is why I think that 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> goes against the LLVM Developer Policy:

- @jrtc27 Approved D96914 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96914> on the condition that the behavior be opt-in only. https://reviews.llvm.org/D96914#2586099
- The behavior was changed from opt-in only to on by default in 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> which was committed without public review.

To me this is equivalent to committing a patch that has been NAK'd by someone, which is against the Developer Policy, and is usually fixed by reverting the affected patch.

I am not accusing you of doing anything malicious, it looks like it was just an oversight, which happens, I get that, especially since it's clear you reached out to other users who may be affected to make sure they were OK with the change.  However, I would really like to see some kind of resolution here that everyone can agree on.  It appears to me like the people objecting to this change have just given up, which is too bad.  It would probably help if someone more familiar with the technical details got involved to help mediate the discussion.  I really don't understand the technical details here.  I just want to make sure the Developer Policy is followed and we don't end up alienating members of the community by making them feel like  their feedback doesn't matter.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D114186/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D114186