[llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing Waymarking from Use.

Ehud Katz via llvm-dev
Fri, 17 Apr 2020 20:25:01 -0000

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>