[llvm-dev] Need guidance to work on NEW PASS managers bugs

[Philip Pfaffe via llvm-dev]

Hi Vivek,

bisect and optnone are certainly low hanging fruit in terms of
implementation. On the other hand they need a cleaner design than they have
now. E.g., OptBisect today is a managed static, which we absolutely should
get rid of. Instead, bisect functionality can be much more cleanly
implemented on top of the debug counters!

While the function call for optnone doesn't strike me as similarly bad,
there is another angle there. I think optnone should be handled by the
passes, and not the manager. Considering running the pass outside of a
manager, you'd probably expect it to respect optnone.

In summary, while easy to implement, these things need reconsidering and a
solid RFC. So if you want to work on this, you should draft such a design
document and post it to the list to collect comments and requests from the
community.

Cheers,
Philip


2018-05-01 21:01 GMT+02:00 vivek pandya via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:

>
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Vivek,
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you read the mailing list threads on this topic? I don’t believe
>> we’re quite ready to make the switch yet. There was a discussion last
>> October about what was left to be done. I’m sure it has been discussed
>> since then too. Here’s a link to the start of the October discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118280.html
>>
> Yes I have gone through that mail chain. One thing mentioned in that was
> Code Generation does not use new PM so I wanted to start working in that
> direction.
>
>>
>>
>> If you’d like to get involved, one possible area you could contribute is
>> adding optbisect/optnone support as mentioned in this bug:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28316
>>
>>
>>
>> If that looks like something you’re interested in I can offer some
>> guidance with it.
>>
> Sure I am happy to work on it. Could you please update the bug with your
> thoughts on how that needs to be done?
>
> -Vivek
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *vivek
>> pandya via llvm-dev
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 28, 2018 9:23 AM
>> *To:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Subject:* [llvm-dev] Need guidance to work on NEW PASS managers bugs
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello LLVM-Devs,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am trying to get some starting points for working on following new pass
>> manager related bugs:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28322 [PM] Remove use of old PM in
>> the middle-end.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28323 [PM] Use new PM in
>> production for Clang, LLD, libLTO, etc. middle-end
>>
>> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28321 [PM] Remove use of old PM in
>> the backend
>>
>>
>>
>> I read related code but did not get a good starting point.
>>
>> Can someone guide me through this? Can we add more details to these bugs?
>> Or can we further divide these bugs to smaller workable items?
>>
>>
>>
>> Any help will be appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Vivek
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180502/3eaabb7d/attachment.html>