Hi,
> Just a bit of context and to have some expectation management regarding > this patch. The main purpose of this implementation was to back a thesis. > It was made under a very serious time pressure and the main goal was to be > able to measure on real world projects as soon as possible and in the > meantime to be flexible so we can measure multiple configurations (like > incremental solving). > > So the goal was a flexible proof of concept that is sensible to measure in > the shortest possible time. After the thesis was done, Reka started to work > an another GSoC project, so she had no time to review the code with the > requirements of upstreaming in mind. Nevertheless we found that sharing the > proof of concept could be useful for the community. So it is perfectly > reasonable if you disagree with some design decisions behind this patch, > because the requirements for the thesis (in the short time frame) was very > different from the requirements of upstreaming this work. In a different > context these decisions made perfect sense. > > Just want to comment here and give thanks again for the first version of the refutation code. It's being really helpful to develop the approach this code as a base; things would definitely be slower if I had to start it from scratch. Thanks! -- Mikhail Ramalho.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
