ChuanqiXu9 wrote: > > Sorry, for the disappearance. I needed to ride out some big waves life > > threw. > > I’m sorry to hear that. Wishing you strength, peace, and all the very best. > > > @EricWF hi, do you still plan to work on contracts? > > I am completing my implementation in the downstream and applying them into > > our internal workloads. It is verified with large code base now. > > How do you guys feel about me to contribute my implementation to the > > upstream? > > CC @cor3ntin @dascandy @yronglin @AaronBallman > > SGTM! Thank you working on this! IMO, we can start the upstreaming process > first. Do we need to reference > https://github.com/efcs/llvm-project/tree/contracts-nightly 's test suites or > some implementation? It's already reviewed by a couple of people and > extensively tested. It might help us avoid some problems which encountered > before.
It sounds like a good idea to add their tests. I prefer to use my implementation for maintainability consideration as they are more familiar to me. And of course, we do need a lot of reviews. > > BTW, do we need a RFC about this? This is slightly different. Previously we sent RFC to ask if some features are wanted. But I feel no one is against implementing contracts. I feel it might be a little bit sensitive to say we have two branches and we need to pick one. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/205739 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
