search for: pr46649

Hi all, The current plan is to prioritize enabling the NPM as soon as possible, and that includes addressing any blockers that are known or arise. This means prioritizing those blockers over other LLVM work. The current umbrella bug is PR46649 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46649>. Philip's point is spot on that we are deficient now in the testing of the LegacyPassManager, because so many have already made the switch (FWIW Google switched more than 2 years ago). It's not constructive for the LLVM community to just...

...egacyPassManager, > > I disagree because the LPM is still the default and I appreciated Hans' > reply: "Defaults tend to be popular". But this is the direction I like: > > > This means prioritizing those blockers over other LLVM work. The current > umbrella bug is PR46649 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46649>. > > Just checking: do you accept both performance and code-size regressions as > blockers here? > Yes, I think big performance and code-size regressions need to be investigated. It will be hard to quantify what "big" is tho...

FWIW I'm in favor of this direction while making sure that we keep focus on removing the vestiges of the old pass manager for the code health impact to the project. -eric On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:15 PM Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > (I'm probably going to derail your thread, sorry about that.) > > I think at this point, we should just