Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "issue144074_1".
2009 Nov 01
1
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
A possible patch implementing this is at
http://codereview.appspot.com/144074
(http://codereview.appspot.com/download/issue144074_1.diff).
I do NOT think we should accept this patch: It changes a lot of APIs
and makes users specify the choice in many places, while I think most
users really just want one choice for their whole app. There's a good
argument to be made that users may want to decide certain calls should
be lazi...
2009 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
Cool, I'll start implementing it.
Thanks all for the decision!
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
> I have no objection to Chris' proposal.
>
> Evan
>
> On Oct 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>
>> Are you objecting to Chris's proposal? I was waiting to implement it
>> until you replied so I
2009 Oct 29
3
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
I have no objection to Chris' proposal.
Evan
On Oct 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Are you objecting to Chris's proposal? I was waiting to implement it
> until you replied so I wouldn't have to implement two things. I
> disagree with a lot of what you wrote below, but it's not worth
> arguing about if there's a compromise we can both live with.