[llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use.

Tyker1@outlook.com via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Apr 14 05:01:59 PDT 2020

a bit of time has passed and there to my knowledge still no strong arguments against removing it.
is everyone OK to proceed with the removal ?

From: Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 7:40 PM
To: Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>
Cc: Ehud Katz <ehudkatz at gmail.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Tyker1 at outlook.com <Tyker1 at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use.

On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com<mailto:johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>> wrote:

Is it worth it? I think it is. But I am not sure I see the whole picture -
are there low-memory systems that need to run LLVM on?

I am not sure what needs to be done to approve such a fundamental change;
especially when we can't prove the Waymarking was needed at all.

I guess if no-one brings forth arguments (= results) for keeping it and

people continue to support replacing it, we will replace it. There should

be a grace period in which people have the chance to do their benchmarking

(basically what is happening), but I don't recall a problem being reported yet.

I agree.  I’m not hearing strong arguments to retain it, so let's remove it.  Worst case, we can always reinstate it if there is a good reason discovered down the line.  Thank you!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200414/74c0db4f/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list