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

Ehud Katz via llvm-dev
Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:32:39 -0000

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>