=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>, =?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>, =?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>, =?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>, =?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>, =?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>, =?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>, =?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>, =?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com>, =?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy <donat.n...@ericsson.com> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139...@github.com>
steakhal wrote: > I pushed a heap of small commits which do various simple cleanup in this > neighborhood. > > > If we could harden the bug EQclass part for deterministically selecting the > > sequence of the bug reports we would try, that would make the outcomes > > stable no matter how the egraph looks, right? > > Anyway, we should probably focus first hardening stability of the reports > > and then on disruptive changes to mitigate the pain upfront. Because if we > > would land this, and then more similar changes, then we would face this > > instability again and again with a similar magnitude. > > I agree, this seems to be a good approach: first land one commit that > enforces deterministic ordering of the bug reports (which is non-NFC and may > disrupt the users _once_) and then it will be possible to merge this commit > and other similar changes without further disruptions. > > I guess, then this commit is put on hold until you or me or somebody else can > harden the ordering of bug reports within an EQclass... I'm not sure that I > can do so immediately (my backlog of plans is getting larger each day...) but > there is a chance... I think we are aligned. yes. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139939 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
