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>
Ehud Katz via llvm-dev
2020-Apr-15 12:32 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use.
Maybe we can utilize the implementation in mlir/IR/UseDefLists.h <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/mlir/include/mlir/IR/UseDefLists.h> in here (clearly it is superior to `llvm::Use`) ? By that we will have the same code base (instead of duplicate implementations of Use-Lists). D77144 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77144> should definitely go in, first, though. On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:32 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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/20200415/4a3c03b6/attachment.html>
Ehud Katz via llvm-dev
2020-Apr-17 20:25 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use.
Now that D77144 has landed; any thoughts regarding what I suggested? Using UseDefLists.h? On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 15:32 Ehud Katz <ehudkatz at gmail.com> wrote:> Maybe we can utilize the implementation in mlir/IR/UseDefLists.h > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/mlir/include/mlir/IR/UseDefLists.h> in > here (clearly it is superior to `llvm::Use`) ? > By that we will have the same code base (instead of duplicate > implementations of Use-Lists). > D77144 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77144> should definitely go in, first, > though. > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:32 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20200417/e0abf916/attachment.html>