llvm dev - May 2009 - [LLVMdev] Calling-convention lowering proposal

On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, David Greene wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 29 April 2009 19:22, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>>> On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:39 AM, David Greene wrote:
>>>>> This patch changes the LLVM API.  We should have a process
for
>>>>> deprecating
>>>>> obsolete interfaces before removing them entirely. 
It's a
>>>>> significant
>>>>> maintenance headache to pull down a new release and fix all
of the
>>>>> API
>>>>> issues along with tracking down new bugs introduced.
>>>> No, we make no attempt at being API compatible across revs of
LLVM.
>>> That's a huge mistake going forward if we want to grow the  
>>> community.
>>
>> Perhaps.  However, I greatly prefer to make life easier for people  
>> who
>> contribute code (by preventing them from having to worry about
>> deprecation etc) than for those who don't.  Reducing the barrier to
>> contributing code is a good way (IMO) to encourage contributions and
>> new developers.
>
> Perhaps, but it's a barrier for those who actually want to use  
> LLVM's JIT.
> We'd love to keep up with the latest versions of LLVM, but stuff  
> just keeps
> breaking and sometimes features are just deleted.  For example, it  
> used
> to be possible easily to turn on and off asm dumping, but it isn't  
> any more.
That's not true. It's just the option name was changed. The option was  
added initially to facilitate debugging, but people somehow treats it  
as a feature. That's fine. That just encourage users to get involved  
with the community.

Evan
>
> Andrew.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Evan Cheng wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>> Chris Lattner wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, David Greene wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 29 April 2009 19:22, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:39 AM, David Greene wrote:
>>>>>> This patch changes the LLVM API.  We should have a
process for
>>>>>> deprecating
>>>>>> obsolete interfaces before removing them entirely. 
It's a
>>>>>> significant
>>>>>> maintenance headache to pull down a new release and fix
all of the
>>>>>> API
>>>>>> issues along with tracking down new bugs introduced.
>>>>> No, we make no attempt at being API compatible across revs
of LLVM.
>>>> That's a huge mistake going forward if we want to grow the
>>>> community.
>>> Perhaps.  However, I greatly prefer to make life easier for people
>>> who
>>> contribute code (by preventing them from having to worry about
>>> deprecation etc) than for those who don't.  Reducing the
barrier to
>>> contributing code is a good way (IMO) to encourage contributions
and
>>> new developers.
>> Perhaps, but it's a barrier for those who actually want to use  
>> LLVM's JIT.
>> We'd love to keep up with the latest versions of LLVM, but stuff
just keeps
>> breaking and sometimes features are just deleted.  For example, it used
>> to be possible easily to turn on and off asm dumping, but it isn't
>> any more.
> 
> That's not true. It's just the option name was changed.
You can turn it on once, but you can never turn it off again.
That is, unless there is some way to do it other than by passing
command line options to cl::ParseCommandLineOptions.  The last
time I looked the problem was that DebugOnly was defined as
cl::ValueRequired rather than cl::OneOrMore, so the CLI would
reject any subsequent setting.

If there is some way around this, I'd be delighted to know.

Andrew.

On May 1, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Evan Cheng wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Lattner wrote:
>>>> On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, David Greene wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday 29 April 2009 19:22, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:39 AM, David Greene wrote:
>>>>>>> This patch changes the LLVM API.  We should have a
process for
>>>>>>> deprecating
>>>>>>> obsolete interfaces before removing them entirely. 
It's a
>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>> maintenance headache to pull down a new release and
fix all of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>> issues along with tracking down new bugs
introduced.
>>>>>> No, we make no attempt at being API compatible across
revs of
>>>>>> LLVM.
>>>>> That's a huge mistake going forward if we want to grow
the
>>>>> community.
>>>> Perhaps.  However, I greatly prefer to make life easier for
people
>>>> who
>>>> contribute code (by preventing them from having to worry about
>>>> deprecation etc) than for those who don't.  Reducing the
barrier to
>>>> contributing code is a good way (IMO) to encourage
contributions
>>>> and
>>>> new developers.
>
>>> Perhaps, but it's a barrier for those who actually want to use
>>> LLVM's JIT.
>
>>> We'd love to keep up with the latest versions of LLVM, but
stuff
>>> just keeps
>>> breaking and sometimes features are just deleted.  For example, it
>>> used
>>> to be possible easily to turn on and off asm dumping, but it
isn't
>>> any more.
>>
>> That's not true. It's just the option name was changed.
>
> You can turn it on once, but you can never turn it off again.
That's not different from before.
> That is, unless there is some way to do it other than by passing
> command line options to cl::ParseCommandLineOptions.  The last
> time I looked the problem was that DebugOnly was defined as
> cl::ValueRequired rather than cl::OneOrMore, so the CLI would
> reject any subsequent setting.
>
> If there is some way around this, I'd be delighted to know.
This will require modifying code. Patches welcome.

Evan
>
> Andrew.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev