[llvm-dev] "[NFC]" Abuse

[Fangrui Song via llvm-dev]

On 2021-06-17, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:15 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
>llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Got links to the reviews? Hard to discuss in the abstract.
>>
>> But generally, if it is intended to change observable behavior of the LLVM
>> program (if you have to modify a lit test, that's not NFC, if one could
>> craft a test (that doesn't invoke UB, though that shouldn't be possible
>> through the command line interface, etc) that would need to be modified
>> when the patch is committed - then it's not NFC).
>>
>
>That's my litmus test: I see NFC is an indication that no test changes and
>none are expected to be provided. The functional behavior of the compiler
>is unchanged.  I use NFC on API changes and refactoring when it fits this
>description.
>
>We could improve the doc maybe?

I consider anything modifying an external function/variable (e.g. adding a
parameter, changing the state of a default argument, deleting an unused
function, etc) a functional change.

I consider that refactoring inside a function can be NFC, e.g.

* add/delete/remove local variables
* simplify function-local code

Pure test updates can be seen NFC but I usually tag such commits as `[test]`
to make it clear no code is touched.


It may be less clear whether removing an internal linkage function /
extracting some logic into an internal linkage function is a function
change. Emmm I think that can be NFC.


Sometimes people use the term "NFCI" (no functional change intended).
I thought "intended" means that: the author is not 100% sure that no
functional change is caused (for some refactoring it is sometimes
difficult to guarantee without good test coverage)
but seems that many use "NFCI" to refer to obviously NFC things.



>
>>
>> But I think it's important that NFC is about intent, not about the reality
>> of what the patch ends up doing - so we can't judge an NFC patch by whether
>> it causes a regression later - the NFC marker is there to say "I don't
>> intend this to cause any observable change, if you observe any change,
>> that's a bug" in the same way any patch description is a statement of
>> intent and can't be more than that.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:11 AM Luke Drummond via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Twice in the last week I've had to bisect crashes in the middle end or
>>> failed CI
>>> due to commits marked "[NFC]" that changed something fundamental about a
>>> public
>>> API or the format of IR.
>>>
>>> While I understand LLVM's always been pretty fluid with API and ABI
>>> stability,
>>> it smacks a little when the offending commit is marked "[NFC]".
>>>
>>> Can some elders / code-owners comment on the expected threshold for what
>>> no
>>> longer counts as "NFC"? I'd personally like to limit its usage to things
>>> like
>>> changing a local variable name, rewording a comment, or clang-formatting
>>> something - not API, ABI, or IR changes.
>>>
>>> All the Best
>>>
>>> Luke
>>> --
>>> Codeplay Software Ltd.
>>> Company registered in England and Wales, number: 04567874
>>> Registered office: Regent House, 316 Beulah Hill, London, SE19 3HF
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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