[llvm-dev] Scalable Vector Types in IR - Next Steps?

[David Greene via llvm-dev]

"Finkel, Hal J." <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes:

>> The agreement reached at the meeting was for the objectors to post their
>> reasons for objecting and counter-proposal in public so discussion could
>> take place, and Arm would investigate the details of the counter-proposal.
>
>
> I've talked with a number of people about this as well, and I think that
> I understand the objections. I'm happy that ARM followed through with
> the alternate set of patches. Regardless, however, unless those who had
> wished to object still wish to object, and then actually do so, we now
> clearly have a good collection of contributors actively desiring to do
> code review, and we should move forward (i.e., start committing patches
> once they're judged ready).

I am not sure this is your intended meaning, but if those objecting
don't come forward, I would like to see Graham's current patches
supporting scalable types go in.  A number of people have now stated
that they are desirable, people have reviewed them, Graham has made
changes and we're ready to review them some more and iterate on them.

It would set a bad precedent to block patches based on some vague
objections that aren't being discussed publicly.  We can debate the
actual patches, that of course needs to happen.  But the RFC looks
reasonable to me and apparently others.  Let's start moving forward.

                              -David