Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "disincentiv".
Did you mean:
disincentive
2019 Jun 27
3
A libc in LLVM
...he topic. Maybe some of this is related to messaging - would the proposed project be *an* LLVM libc or *the* LLVM libc. There is already at least one instance within the LLVM umbrella where a subproject designed and built to a particular set of constraints became *the* LLVM solution, and ended up disincentivizing investment from contributors whose priorities didn't match those constraints. Staking the blessed-by-LLVM slot for a piece of the toolchain is not free.
To turn the question around, why should *this* libc (assuming it will be built whether or not LLVM accepts it) be *the* LLVM libc?
--O...
2019 Jun 27
2
A libc in LLVM
...e of this is related to
> messaging - would the proposed project be *an* LLVM libc or *the* LLVM
> libc. There is already at least one instance within the LLVM umbrella
> where a subproject designed and built to a particular set of constraints
> became *the* LLVM solution, and ended up disincentivizing investment from
> contributors whose priorities didn't match those constraints. Staking the
> blessed-by-LLVM slot for a piece of the toolchain is not free.
>
> To turn the question around, why should *this* libc (assuming it will be
> built whether or not LLVM accepts it)...
2019 Jun 27
5
A libc in LLVM
...he topic. Maybe some of this is related to messaging - would the proposed project be *an* LLVM libc or *the* LLVM libc. There is already at least one instance within the LLVM umbrella where a subproject designed and built to a particular set of constraints became *the* LLVM solution, and ended up disincentivizing investment from contributors whose priorities didn't match those constraints. Staking the blessed-by-LLVM slot for a piece of the toolchain is not free.
>
> To turn the question around, why should *this* libc (assuming it will be built whether or not LLVM accepts it) be *the* LLVM l...
2018 Nov 09
2
[cfe-dev] [Call for Volunteers] Bug triaging
...I wonder if backends are a special case to the heuristic of "let's not
> make a bug component for code components that are too small". LLVM is
> factored to cleanly separate backend code, to the point where it's the one
> thing you can leave out at compile time; this can disincentivize people to
> care about bugs in backends that they don't use (and conversely backends
> seem like the most common/best supported out-of-tree use case). There's
> obviously a lot of variance in how actively-developed the backends are and
> how many people care about them, but i...
2018 Nov 09
2
[cfe-dev] [Call for Volunteers] Bug triaging
Hi Zach,
Thanks for elaborating.
I like your proposal. I agree it still groups per area of expertise. And it makes the set of components we have easier to manage.
Before making changes though I hope to hear opinions from others on this.
What do others think?
Thanks,
Kristof
On 9 Nov 2018, at 18:05, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com<mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote:
To
2019 Jun 24
24
A libc in LLVM
Hello LLVM Developers,
Within Google, we have a growing range of needs that existing libc
implementations don't quite address. This is pushing us to start working on
a new libc implementation.
Informal conversations with others within the LLVM community has told us
that a libc in LLVM is actually a broader need, and we are increasingly
consolidating our toolchains around LLVM. Hence, we