21–30 of 163 posts
This seems related https://github.com/chriseth/notes/blob/186d7ea0742336ed38e39... "TrueBit - Off-Chain Computations for Smart Contracts"
I gotta say, if I was the BDFL of llvm, I would kick this out of tree without a second thought. Why on earth should a foss project support a private architecture? How many man-hours have been wasted waiting for the Lanai backend to compile? Not to mention applying project-wide refactoring to the Lanai code.
Some notable comments:
> I was going to mention it, but you guys know very well the drill, so unless this hardware changes fundamental parts of the middle end in ways that are unnatural to most other targets (doesn't seem that way), then I see no reason why not have it upstream.
> I see no problem with having the backend upstream with the understanding that all the normal policies apply. Getting more people working on ToT is valuable to the community as a whole and provided it's "just another backend" with plenty of tests, the cost is low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google isn't really forcing anyone to do anything in this case. Another RISC backend that was made clear would be ripped out of upstream the instant the Google maintainers stopped responding isn't really an imposition.
Would something like this be accepted in open source projects that are not significantly driven by Google? E.g. would Linux accept code for drivers / architectures that are not available to the public? I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not sure that generalises beyond modular compilers though.
I gotta say, if I was the BDFL of llvm, I would kick this out of tree without a second thought. Why on earth should a foss project support a private architecture? How many man-hours have been wasted waiting for the Lanai backend to compile? Not to mention applying project-wide refactoring to the Lanai code.
I gotta say, if I was the BDFL of llvm, I would kick this out of tree without a second thought. Why on earth should a foss project support a private architecture? How many man-hours have been wasted waiting for the Lanai backend to compile? Not to mention applying project-wide refactoring to the Lanai code.
I worked for Myricom 2001->2013, and Google 2013->2015. And, wow, I wish I could comment on this thread.. :) EDIT: Scott's Medium blog post linked from this article is fascinating: https://medium.com/swlh/myricom-an-hpc-story-and-lessons-lea...
Why can you not comment? Certainly any NDA you signed must be expired by now. PSA: If you are not getting continuing payments, any contracts you signed are void. Technically, I gather you are supposed to notify the other party that you are terminating your participation in the contract. Even if you are getting ongoing payments, you can opt out of that, too. (This is not legal advice. Consult an actual lawyer for anyt…
Even if there were no legal repercussions (which there are), that's a great way to never be hired again.
I gotta say, if I was the BDFL of llvm, I would kick this out of tree without a second thought. Why on earth should a foss project support a private architecture? How many man-hours have been wasted waiting for the Lanai backend to compile? Not to mention applying project-wide refactoring to the Lanai code.
Probably zero? Is it compiled by default?
I worked for Myricom 2001->2013, and Google 2013->2015. And, wow, I wish I could comment on this thread.. :) EDIT: Scott's Medium blog post linked from this article is fascinating: https://medium.com/swlh/myricom-an-hpc-story-and-lessons-lea...
I just want to know why it needs to be in-tree.