[LLVMdev] [RFC] Stackmap and Patchpoint Intrinsic Proposal

[Chris Lattner]

On Oct 18, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I recommend, this being the case, to replace 'webkit' with 'experimental'. Having webkit in the name implies some dependence on webkit, and there is none. Plus, this functionality will be used by outside projects as soon as it lands in trunk, and I suspect that having webkit in the initial name will end up as a naming incongruity that no one will really think is worth the effort to change.
>>> 
>>> You’re correct that there is no dependence. I’m fine dropping the webkit name, but only if we can go straight to the final name (no need for “experimental”).
>> 
>> I think that Hal's idea of "experimental" is the right approach here.  The major thing we want is to avoid having to be backwards compatible with this intrinsic in subsequent llvm releases.  "experimental" sends that message, where webkit does not (and is also bad for the reasons Hal mentions).
> 
> What would be the criteria for eventually dropping 'experimental' from the intrinsic names? 

At the least, I'd like to get some experience on these.  Having webkit actually ship something based on this seems like a minimal requirement to demonstrate that it will actually work (end to end) in practice.  Beyond that, we'd want to be happy enough with it that we'd be willing to autoupgrade it if it ever evolves in future releases: i.e. we'd be promising backward compatibility with the intrinsic.

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131018/12f8e9df/attachment.html>