[llvm-dev] [RFC] BOLT: A Framework for Binary Analysis, Transformation, and Optimization (original) (raw)

Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Mar 18 12:06:44 PDT 2021

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:26 AM Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:48 AM Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:54 PM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > Actually if I remember correctly flang went through multiple months of preparatory upgrade that were asked for by some people in the community, and they did so out-of-tree before getting ready to land in a single merge. I have to admit that contrary to OpenMP, that I followed very closely, I only superficially followed flang development. Thus, I stand corrected by Mehdi and Eric here. > We just have to make the expectation very clear and having a "moving goalposts" situation and it should work fine. Any particular reason that would put us in a "ad infinitum" situation? I said "we may end up" -- or we may not. :-) No particular reason apart of history of software engineering. As you said, clear expectations from the very start are a key ingredient to avoid this happening. IMHO, it's infinitely better to start project development in a wide and mature open source community ASAP -- at expense of some potential refactoring work -- rather than delay until code is "good enough". This says a man who spent most of his life working on proprietary projects and used to argue with Chandler that "proprietary development model is less expensive and leads to higher quality" (now I know better). Just one man's opinion. It's fine to disagree. Not to disagree with what you said other than the 'infinitely' better part :) The situation here is different. BOLT has already gone through years of development so it is not really a new project to start with. Not saying it is actually the case, but it is very likely after years of fast pace development, there are lots of tech debts piled up for this project and it is now the golden opportunity to clean them up. There will be way less momentum to do this kind of work after it gets in -- especially when there are other new dependencies start to get in the way. thanks, David

Yours, Andrey

Agree with others that some preparatory work needs to done first. By exposing the project to a wider community it will get more readers and offload some maintenance burden to the whole community. There should be larger requirement on testing/documentation/tech debts cleanup which could be of lower priority when it is developed in house. llvm-project probably does not lack development resources but the review resource is definitely scarce in many areas. The preparatory improvements can save all the reviewers from asking some basics like coding standard suggestions (e.g. https://github.com/facebookincubator/BOLT/issues/130) and requesting better tests (https://github.com/facebookincubator/BOLT/issues/129 https://github.com/facebookincubator/BOLT/issues/132 (split runtime tests) https://github.com/facebookincubator/BOLT/issues/133 (Fine-grained tests)). I am concerned with the completeness/robustness/conciseness of testsuite as well.

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list