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.
>
>...
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...