gulfem added a comment. In D90275#3712991 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275#3712991>, @nlopes wrote:
> In D90275#3712969 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275#3712969>, @gulfem wrote: > >> In D90275#3712880 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275#3712880>, @nlopes wrote: >> >>> In D90275#3707793 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275#3707793>, @nlopes wrote: >>> >>>> In D90275#3671983 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275#3671983>, @gulfem wrote: >>>> >>>>> In D90275#3671019 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275#3671019>, @nlopes >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Could you please add a description of this attribute to LangRef? >>>>>> We need the semantics of this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you! >>>>> >>>>> Sure, I'll do that! >>>> >>>> ping? >>> >>> Since the patch author has been ignoring my ask (and is active), and since >>> documenting IR features is of paramount importance, I suggest we revert >>> this patch. I think 3 weeks to document something is sufficient, and the >>> author didn't provide an ETA. >>> I would like to ask everyone to reject all future patches that change the >>> IR and don't include documentation, as experience says that we'll get >>> miscompilations due to different people having different ideas of the >>> semantics. >>> >>> TL;DR: I'll revert this patch on Friday if no one chimes in. Thank you! >> >> I'm very sorry and I was not ignoring your ask. I'll do it now. > > Thanks! > I'm fine with a reasonable ETA, but we really need all IR features documented > to avoid bugs. The urgency was not clear to me at the beginning, and I already added this to my list. I did not have a chance to respond to your comment this week because of traveling. But again, I did not mean to ignore this. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
