search for: _massively_

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "_massively_".

Did you mean: _massive_
2020 Jul 23
2
Explicitly spelling out the lack of stability for the C++ API in the Developer Policy?
...VM to split it up into a sequence of logical changes: > > 1) Add the new API. > 2) Use it in llvm-project. > 3) Add LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_DEPRECATED to the old API. > 4) Remove the old API. > > 1-3 could be in a single commit, but having a few weeks between them > and point 4 helps _massively_. > I don't see this as a "almost zero effort", I see this as a potentially *heavy* effort actually. I am also fairly wary of the side-effect of such expectation in that it will: - discourage refactoring / cleanup, leading to an overall more cumbersome/convoluted API surface and...
2020 Jul 23
2
Explicitly spelling out the lack of stability for the C++ API in the Developer Policy?
...to split it up into a sequence of logical changes: > > 1) Add the new API. > 2) Use it in llvm-project. > 3) Add LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_DEPRECATED to the old API. > 4) Remove the old API. > > 1-3 could be in a single commit, but having a few weeks between them > and point 4 helps _massively_. > > It allows us to keep compiling against LLVM trunk in our CI, while one > person goes and fixes up our use of the API (which we can detect > automatically thanks to the warning or -Werror). It also makes it > easier for us to bisect regressions across such API changes. > &gt...
2020 Jul 22
6
Explicitly spelling out the lack of stability for the C++ API in the Developer Policy?
The Developer Policy document (https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html) contains a Section "C API Changes". There is no corresponding section for C++ API Changes. LLVM is somewhat different from most libraries in that the main language is C++ but the C++ API is not guaranteed to be stable in any shape or form from what I understand. I think it would be useful to have a "C++ API
2020 Jul 24
2
Explicitly spelling out the lack of stability for the C++ API in the Developer Policy?
...>> 1) Add the new API. > >> 2) Use it in llvm-project. > >> 3) Add LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_DEPRECATED to the old API. > >> 4) Remove the old API. > >> > >> 1-3 could be in a single commit, but having a few weeks between them > >> and point 4 helps _massively_. > > > > > > I don't see this as a "almost zero effort", I see this as a potentially > *heavy* effort actually. > > What do you base this belief on? > The experience of refactoring some large components in LLVM, contrasted with working on other codebases...