-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15k
[LLVM] Volunteer myself as a secondary maintainer for LoopVectorizer #120704
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
I now have the time and am willing to help out with code reviews, tidy up tests, clean up code, etc. Over the last few years I've done quite a lot of vectoriser work, which includes adding support for scalable vectors with tail-folding and this year working towards vectorisation of loops with uncountable early exits. I've also been actively engaged with reviewing upstream loop vectoriser patches, and submitting NFC clean-up patches. Now that we can have a list of maintainers per area I thought perhaps it's worth formalising things by adding myself as a secondary maintainer if others are happy?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't know how much my vote counts but given your years service in this area and likely one of the most knowledge when it comes to vectorisation using scalable vectors I believe your involvement would help ease the burden on Florian and is thus worth consideration.
To help move this forward, the LLVM Developer Policy states:
@fhahn, as the sole maintainer for |
|
I'm not sure if I have understood the policy correctly as described in https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#maintainers. I'm happy with whatever decision we take, but it would be good to know either way so I can either close or merge the PR. Thanks! |
|
Closing PR due to lack of interest |
|
I was just going through some data from https://app.graphite.dev/insights. I see that @david-arm has reviewed around 363 patches and contributed around 70 patches, most of them related to loop vectorisation. Thanks @david-arm for your volunteering and service for LLVM in general and the LoopVectorizer in particular. Hope you will continue your participation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah sorry I missed responding to this one! More than happy to have more maintainers. IMO not being listed as maintainer should also not discourage people to triage issues, do reviews etc.
|
@fhahn - If you're happy to accept @david-arm as a maintainer than please reopen and accept the PR. As it stands we're assuming this is not the case, which we're fine with, but it would be unfortunate for Dave to miss out if it's just a case of you missing an email notification. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll leave it to @david-arm to merge the PR
|
OK thank you @fhahn! |
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/181/builds/28420 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference |
I now have the time and am willing to help out with code reviews, tidy up tests, clean up code, etc. Over the last few years I've done quite a lot of vectoriser work, which includes adding support for scalable vectors with tail-folding and this year working towards vectorisation of loops with uncountable early exits. I've also been actively engaged with reviewing upstream loop vectoriser patches, and submitting NFC clean-up patches.
Now that we can have a list of maintainers per area I thought perhaps it's worth formalising things by adding myself as a secondary maintainer if others are happy?
Not entirely sure who to add as reviewers on this PR though!