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

[Sean Silva via llvm-dev]

Also, if this hasn't happened already, I would recommend some 1-on-1 (at
least over chat, or if possible video call) between Nicolai and Dave. In
the past, I have found this to fairly quickly come to consensus about
design direction (though of course please update any relevant threads with
the takeaways of such private discussions!).

-- Sean Silva

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 1:05 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201026/3fe5298f/attachment.html>