Chris Lattner via llvm-dev
2020-Apr-04 17:40 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use.
> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Is it worth it? I think it is. But I am not sure I see the whole picture - >> are there low-memory systems that need to run LLVM on? >> >> I am not sure what needs to be done to approve such a fundamental change; >> especially when we can't prove the Waymarking was needed at all. > I guess if no-one brings forth arguments (= results) for keeping it and > > people continue to support replacing it, we will replace it. There should > > be a grace period in which people have the chance to do their benchmarking > > (basically what is happening), but I don't recall a problem being reported yet. >I agree. I’m not hearing strong arguments to retain it, so let's remove it. Worst case, we can always reinstate it if there is a good reason discovered down the line. Thank you! -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200404/1beb5975/attachment.html>
Tyker1@outlook.com via llvm-dev
2020-Apr-14 12:01 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use.
a bit of time has passed and there to my knowledge still no strong arguments against removing it. is everyone OK to proceed with the removal ? Gauthier ________________________________ From: Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 7:40 PM To: Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> Cc: Ehud Katz <ehudkatz at gmail.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Tyker1 at outlook.com <Tyker1 at outlook.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use. On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com<mailto:johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>> wrote: Is it worth it? I think it is. But I am not sure I see the whole picture - are there low-memory systems that need to run LLVM on? I am not sure what needs to be done to approve such a fundamental change; especially when we can't prove the Waymarking was needed at all. I guess if no-one brings forth arguments (= results) for keeping it and people continue to support replacing it, we will replace it. There should be a grace period in which people have the chance to do their benchmarking (basically what is happening), but I don't recall a problem being reported yet. I agree. I’m not hearing strong arguments to retain it, so let's remove it. Worst case, we can always reinstate it if there is a good reason discovered down the line. Thank you! -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200414/74c0db4f/attachment.html>
Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
2020-Apr-14 17:32 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use.
Yes please. On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 5:02 AM Tyker1 at outlook.com via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> a bit of time has passed and there to my knowledge still no strong > arguments against removing it. > is everyone OK to proceed with the removal ? > > Gauthier > ------------------------------ > *From:* Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 4, 2020 7:40 PM > *To:* Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> > *Cc:* Ehud Katz <ehudkatz at gmail.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Tyker1 at outlook.com <Tyker1 at outlook.com> > *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use. > > > > On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Is it worth it? I think it is. But I am not sure I see the whole picture - > are there low-memory systems that need to run LLVM on? > > I am not sure what needs to be done to approve such a fundamental change; > especially when we can't prove the Waymarking was needed at all. > > I guess if no-one brings forth arguments (= results) for keeping it and > > people continue to support replacing it, we will replace it. There should > > be a grace period in which people have the chance to do their benchmarking > > (basically what is happening), but I don't recall a problem being reported > yet. > > > I agree. I’m not hearing strong arguments to retain it, so let's remove > it. Worst case, we can always reinstate it if there is a good reason > discovered down the line. Thank you! > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > 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/20200414/65ec6ed3/attachment.html>