MaskRay added a comment. In D120305#3347103 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347103>, @tstellar wrote:
> In D120305#3347058 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347058>, @nemanjai > wrote: > >> In D120305#3346880 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3346880>, @MaskRay >> wrote: >> >>> While I feel sorry for leaving clang-ppc64le-rhel red for some time and am >>> willing to fix issues if I have access to a ppc64 machine (especially >>> compiler-rt ones that I care about), >>> I feel uncomfortably if a group just bluntly request "please pull this >>> patch" when apparently (a) there is a better approach (explicitly setting >>> CLANG_DEFAULT_PIE_ON_LINUX=OFF) and (b) there is something a bot maintainer >>> can do >>> and (c) there is just some inherent stability problem (in this case, >>> consider not enabling the testing when the target is still unstable) that >>> is causing not only this issue, but various other reports (as I watch >>> sanitizer failures quite closely and ppc64 often tends to be the outlier >>> thing) >> >> Statements like this seem to be at odds with this community's culture (or at >> least the way I understand it). >> As long as I have been a member of this community, the guidance for patches >> that break bots is to fix it immediately if the fix is obvious/trivial and >> if it isn't, to pull the patch until a solution can be found. I am not aware >> of any changes to this policy. I would also like to add that this approach >> serves most other members of the community quite well and at least I >> personally don't see much opposition to this. Frankly, the only person I >> have ever received a response that amounts to "I would rather not" when >> asking them to pull a patch that breaks bots is yourself. > > @nemanjai Is correct here. May I beg that you read my reply first and give more evidence when standing by one party? You as a https://foundation.llvm.org/docs/board/ member, your words weigh a lot, but with great power comes great responsibility, so every judgement needs to be made prudently. > @MaskRay I feel like we are starting to repeat the same discussion we had > with the start-stop-gc patches, and I would like to have a better outcome > this time. Can you please just revert the patch and then we can discuss the > next steps. Everyone wants to discuss start-stop-gc can go to https://discourse.llvm.org/t/lld-default-nostart-stop-gc-default-on-release-13-x-and-main/5369 Please don't conflate things here. I felt bad that people used an unguaranteed behavior as granted and accused/attacked me of changes. I think time has proved my correctness: I don't think anyone sees new wacky things in this area. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
