search for: issue144074_1

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.