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

[vivek pandya via llvm-dev]

Ok I will design the solution first.
-Vivek

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/b2869e4e/attachment.html>