[llvm-dev] [RFC] Expanding the scope of ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_NEW_PASS_MANAGER

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

I strongly disagree with this proposal.  As in, please do not land 
patches which implement this proposal.  If anything, we should remove 
the build time config flag entirely.

The new manager is mature and has been in wide use for a long time now.  
Moving it to a conditional compilation item is a major regression in 
implied maturity and completely unwarranted.  If anything, we should 
just flip the dang flag and make people using the old pass manager 
support it.  (Most downstream groups I know of are running NPM.)

Philip

On 12/1/20 12:34 PM, Arthur Eubanks via llvm-dev wrote:
> The ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_NEW_PASS_MANAGER CMake flag currently only 
> affects Clang. It should probably also change all other uses of pass 
> managers where possible.
>
> There are a couple of uses inside LLD for LTO which already have 
> new/legacy PM flags and should probably look at 
> ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_NEW_PASS_MANAGER to determine the default. Some 
> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1314a4938fba865412598b7227cb4657d59cd8bc/lld/wasm/Driver.cpp#L382> 
> examples 
> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1314a4938fba865412598b7227cb4657d59cd8bc/llvm/include/llvm/LTO/Config.h#L53>.
>
> Also at some point in the future when check-llvm has been fixed to 
> work with opt's -enable-new-pm flag by default, that should also be 
> dependent upon ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_NEW_PASS_MANAGER.
>
> Any objections?
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201204/680cf4bd/attachment.html>