[llvm-dev] RFC: CfgTraits/CfgInterface design discussion

[Eric Christopher via llvm-dev]

Hi Nicolai,

I've been watching this and the associated review that +Mehdi AMINI
<joker.eph at gmail.com> brought up as far as the process.

I think you should revert this patch and anything dependent upon it until
the review is complete. Dave has many good points in his review and while
you pinged there needs to be resolution before applying. In particular,
he's probably the most active reviewer in exactly this space right now and
is obviously also the right reviewer for this patch.

Please revert immediately and thanks. I'm sorry the patch has gotten
contentious, but this is a fairly major overhaul and it does happen
sometimes.

Thanks.

-eric



On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 2:46 PM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 23:13, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Maybe David wants to forbid this use of dynamic polymorphism outright.
>> I think this is unacceptable, so in that case, it seems we have no
>> choice but to start a formal process for resolving contentious
>> decisions.
>
>
> If this ends up being the case, then you *must* revert the patch until the
> matter can be solved.
>
> But as I said before, I would have reverted it a long time ago.
>
> (I would still ask people to _please_ be good citizens and allow us to
>> make upstream progress in AMDGPU as we usually do while this is
>> happening -- I explain my reasoning a bit more below -- but I'd accept
>> it based on the rules that are in effect today. Invoking the formal
>> process should give all participants the confidence that the question
>> doesn't just end up dropped on the floor, and that the in-tree status
>> of the code wouldn't implicitly favor either side of the discussion.)
>>
>
> The AMD backend doesn't trump a high-level CFG design decision that
> affects *all* back-ends, front-ends and middle-ends.
>
> If you progress your AMD work on your current assumption and it turns out
> people decide against it you will have to revert *all* of it, which is a
> lot more substantial (and a potentially dangerous merge) than just this CFG
> change.
>
> I'd also strongly advise people reviewing the remaining work from
> approving the patches until this matter can be resolved. This is not a
> trivial issue and can have further consequences than just a simple revert.
>
> And please, do not assume what being a good citizens is. We can all be
> good citizens and still overwhelmingly disagree with each other, as long as
> we keep it civil.
>
> I see no evidence of lack of civility from either David or Mehdi. On the
> contrary, they're being extremely kind and patient.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201026/35797916/attachment.html>