On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Jon Harrop wrote:> On Wednesday 11 March 2009 14:19:28 Vikram S. Adve wrote: >> In principle, having a Wiki like this would be valuable. In >> practice, >> I think there will need to be some sanity checking to make sure >> incorrect or misleading information is not added to it. > > Yes, I think a Wiki would be extremely valuable. I would > particularly like to > see information on which aspects of LLVM have problems and what > conflicts > exist (e.g. the first-class structs vs tail calls thing). I'm not > sure how > such information could be organised though... >Probably there should be an "unreliable" section for those of us who want to contribute but are newbies and might have understood something wrong. Or at least a way to label something as "try this at your own risk" so to speak. Anthony
I agree. Being a newbie myself, I can relate to what problems someone new to llvm would have.While I think most of the stuff I have tried will be useful, I wouldn't be entirely sure if its the best way to go about it. Thanks Nipun Arora Columbia University On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Anthony Danalis <adanalis at eecs.utk.edu>wrote:> > On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > > On Wednesday 11 March 2009 14:19:28 Vikram S. Adve wrote: > >> In principle, having a Wiki like this would be valuable. In > >> practice, > >> I think there will need to be some sanity checking to make sure > >> incorrect or misleading information is not added to it. > > > > Yes, I think a Wiki would be extremely valuable. I would > > particularly like to > > see information on which aspects of LLVM have problems and what > > conflicts > > exist (e.g. the first-class structs vs tail calls thing). I'm not > > sure how > > such information could be organised though... > > > > > Probably there should be an "unreliable" section for those of us who > want > to contribute but are newbies and might have understood something wrong. > Or at least a way to label something as "try this at your own risk" so > to speak. > > Anthony > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090311/617dd3bf/attachment.html>
If we get the blessing of one of the old-timers who is willing to spend a little time reviewing postings, we can deal with the 'misleading information' issue. In addition, it might be _useful_ to understand why people were misled. On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Nipun Arora <nipun2512 at gmail.com> wrote:> I agree. Being a newbie myself, I can relate to what problems someone new to > llvm would have. > While I think most of the stuff I have tried will be useful, I wouldn't be > entirely sure if its the best way to go about it. > Thanks > Nipun Arora > Columbia University > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Anthony Danalis <adanalis at eecs.utk.edu> > wrote: >> >> On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: >> >> > On Wednesday 11 March 2009 14:19:28 Vikram S. Adve wrote: >> >> In principle, having a Wiki like this would be valuable. In >> >> practice, >> >> I think there will need to be some sanity checking to make sure >> >> incorrect or misleading information is not added to it. >> > >> > Yes, I think a Wiki would be extremely valuable. I would >> > particularly like to >> > see information on which aspects of LLVM have problems and what >> > conflicts >> > exist (e.g. the first-class structs vs tail calls thing). I'm not >> > sure how >> > such information could be organised though... >> > >> >> >> Probably there should be an "unreliable" section for those of us who >> want >> to contribute but are newbies and might have understood something wrong. >> Or at least a way to label something as "try this at your own risk" so >> to speak. >> >> Anthony >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >
One more vote for an LLVM wiki! I really like that idea! Anthony Danalis wrote:> Probably there should be an "unreliable" section for those of us who > want > to contribute but are newbies and might have understood something wrong. > Or at least a way to label something as "try this at your own risk" so > to speak.I think a public/unmoderated wiki is always kind of unreliable. If a section has been reviewed it should somehow find its way into the official documentation (Tutorials/HowTos/etc). I would like to see a wiki as a pre stage for the docs so that the community can discuss the content of a topic and change it if necessary. The wiki should be "try this at your own risk" at all. Just my 2 cents. Josef