On Monday 02 November 2009 13:55, Tanya Lattner wrote:> You should do incremental development on trunk. If you create a > branch, no one is going to look at those changes.Ok. but I want to be very clear what that means. It means for each AVX instruction I rip out ALL of the existing SSE support for it. So when ADD gets implemented, ADD goes away from X86InstSSE.td. As things progress, we're almost certainly going to have to refactor or otherwise change things we've done in the past. That means extensive .td changes and some very large commits. If everyone's ok with this kind of churn on trunk, that's what I'll do. But SVN branches exist exactly for these kinds of disruptive changes. We used one for the use-diet so there's precedent. -Dave
On Nov 2, 2009, at 12:51 PM, David Greene wrote:> On Monday 02 November 2009 13:55, Tanya Lattner wrote: >> You should do incremental development on trunk. If you create a >> branch, no one is going to look at those changes. > > Ok. but I want to be very clear what that means. It means for each > AVX > instruction I rip out ALL of the existing SSE support for it. So when > ADD gets implemented, ADD goes away from X86InstSSE.td. > > As things progress, we're almost certainly going to have to refactor > or > otherwise change things we've done in the past. That means extensive > .td changes and some very large commits.Yep, that's the right thing to do. Just make sure that each patch is monotonic progress over the last one (doesn't introduce any known failures or bugs). Thanks David, -Chris
On Monday 02 November 2009 15:37, Chris Lattner wrote:> Yep, that's the right thing to do. Just make sure that each patch is > monotonic progress over the last one (doesn't introduce any known > failures or bugs). Thanks David,Ok. Cray is moving to St. Paul this week (yay!) so I'm not going to send anything until we're settled in next week. That way I'll see the feedback semi-immediately. -Dave