[llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use.
Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Apr 14 10:32:21 PDT 2020
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 5:02 AM Tyker1 at outlook.com via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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>
> 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
> 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!
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev