I don't really disagree with either your or Evan's meta points. =] I agree something in this form *should* go into the tree.
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > I definitely want this designed and implemented in the right way. This is the key. I never saw a really good, complete design discussion on the mailing lists. Instead, there was a very fragmented discussion spanning several commit logs, with a bit of confusion. The questions asked on the review of alloc_size and other parts of the system were never really answered, and the discussion didn't really reach a clear consensus on direction. Kostya and others have tried to consolidate this discussion some, but I'm looking for a bit more focus on discussing the design in the open, and getting some consensus. I'm fine if commits* are flying concurrently in order to keep making progress, but the design side of the discussion can't be neglected. As examples, I would point to Bill's work on metadata or exception handling, or Caitlin and Delesley's work on the thread-safety attributes -- regardless of the desirability of these new features, I think that they did a great job of proposing the design and engaging the community in a discussion about the design so that everyone knew what was going on and why. -Chandler [*] The commits should still get proper review. I think this commit should probably have had pre-commit review as it doesn't seem "obvious", it isn't to a nicely isolated optimization pass like BoundsChecking, and doesn't seem to have had a blanket OK from a code-owner for CodeGen....
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
