[llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use.
Ehud Katz via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Apr 17 13:25:01 PDT 2020
Now that D77144 has landed; any thoughts regarding what I suggested? Using
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 15:32 Ehud Katz <ehudkatz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we can utilize the implementation in mlir/IR/UseDefLists.h
> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/mlir/include/mlir/IR/UseDefLists.h> in
> here (clearly it is superior to `llvm::Use`) ?
> By that we will have the same code base (instead of duplicate
> implementations of Use-Lists).
> D77144 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77144> should definitely go in, first,
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:32 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Yes please.
>> 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> 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
>>> (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!
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev