On May 29, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > 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.
I believe everyone agrees that the community as a whole should continues the discussion towards a consensus. For specific implementation details such as the alloc_size intrinsic, I have no doubt that will happen. However... > > 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. This is where I have issues with the tone of the discussion on the codegen side. I think there is a fundamental disagreement about the scope of the project. Nuno and I are not looking for a solution for all the memory safety systems. I also don't think some hard open questions, such as how other classes of undefined behavior interact with -fbounds-checking, should prevent progress from being made. As far as I can tell what Nuno has implemented so far can be easily modified for whatever solution the community comes up in the future. > > -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.... I agree Nuno may have jumped the gun a bit here. It looks like the discussion is still ongoing and we will make sure future commits address the reviewers concerns. Evan
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
