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

[Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev]

Maybe you could prepare a RFC explaining pros and cons?

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:25 PM Ehud Katz via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Now that D77144 has landed; any thoughts regarding what I suggested? Using UseDefLists.h?
>
> 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 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 should definitely go in, first, though.
>>
>> 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 ?
>>>>
>>>> Gauthier
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> 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 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!
>>>>
>>>> -Chris
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University