[llvm-dev] LLD status update and performance chart

[Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes:
>
> >> On Dec 13, 2016, at 5:55 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> >>> This will also greatly facilitate certain measurements I'd like to do
> >>> w.r.t. different strategies for avoiding memory costs for input files
> (esp.
> >>> minor faults and dTLB costs). I've almost gotten to the point of
> >>> implementing this just to do those measurements.
> >>
> >> If you do please keep it local. The bare minimum we have of library
> >> support is already disproportionately painful and prevents easier
> sharing
> >> with COFF. We should really not add more until the linker is done.
> >
> > This is so much in contrast with the LLVM development, I find it quite
> hard to see this as an acceptable position on llvm-dev.
>
> Why? What is wrong with setting priorities and observing that what
> library support we already have has had a disproportional cost?
>

I think the discussion has started to turn into generalities. There is an
apparent disagreement here, but perhaps only in philosophical stance and
not in actual practice.

Perhaps no decision with regards to this philosophy needs to be made in
this mailing list; we can evaluate code contributions on a case-by-case
basis and have a more concrete talking point.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161213/a129ab12/attachment.html>