►
From YouTube: wg-incr-comp mtg 12, 2021-02-09
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
And
then
we'll
go
from
there,
okay,
so
this
is
the
12th
meeting
of
the
incremental
violation.
Working
group
wesley,
unfortunately,
cannot
attend.
David
has
been
so
kind
as
to
at
least
get
us
started
with
an
agenda,
that's
linked
from
the
zulip
channel,
and
with
that,
let's
just
do
a
quick
round
of
you
know
status
reports.
I've
done
very
I've,
been
almost
nothing
related
to
this
group
working
group
and
I
have
been
doing
things
really.
C
A
A
It
yep
by
the
way
I
don't.
I
suspect
this
is
a
holdover
from
whatever
previous
agenda
was
there.
I
do
want
to
mention
like
there's
an
issue
with
the
date
where
the
dates
are
formatted.
This
is
striking
me
because
we
had
a
thing
at
my
job
where
people
were
like
going
lam
going
off
about
dates,
date,
formatting
and
stuff.
You
know
how,
like
nine
slash,
two
is
ambiguous
about
whether
it's
denotes
september,
9th
or
february,
9th
or
september,
2nd
or
february.
A
I'd
say
I
mean
I
think
the
answer
here
is
to
not
use
numbers
for
the
months
instead
use
three
letter.
You
know
jan
feb
bar,
because
then
it's
unambiguous.
What
you're
talking
about,
I
think,
but
anyway,
let's
quickly
run
through
the
items
then
they're
on
here,
just
to
make
sure
we
review
them
and
keep
track
of
them.
So
we've
got
79560
the
diesel
crate
thing
and
yeah
we're
still
talking
about
trying
to
add
diesel
to
the
ci,
but
I
haven't
done
anything
there.
A
Right
right,
so
we've
got
the
split
dwarf
pr
and
I
know
that
you've
yeah,
I
know
david
you've
been
asking
for
feedback
here.
I
think
the
heart
of
this
is
that
we
we
don't
typically
have
time
to
dig
in
to
something
like
this,
and
the
question
is:
is
it
worthy
of
like
a
a
design
meeting
or
or
something
we
gotta
figure
out
some
way
to
make
progress
here?
Do
you
david?
Do
you
have
any
like?
B
B
Yeah,
so
we've
output
dwarf
objects
and
when
you
then
link
them
together
a
package,
it
expects
the
dwarf
objects
from
dependencies
to
still
exist
and
they
don't
right,
and
so
the
question
is:
how
do
we
make
sure
they
still
exist?
Do
we
put
them
into
the
our
lab?
Do
we
like
other
solutions
like
that?
Do
we
have
a
flag.
A
B
A
If
that's
the
case,
I
think
we
should
take.
We
should,
instead
of
just
waiting
on
people
to
get
feedback,
I'd
say
we
should
make
an
informed
decision
or
on
an
or
even
uninformed
decision
and
and
just
move
forward,
because
this
is
like
a
real
bug
that
needs
to
be
fixed
and
it
seems
like
if
it's
truly
just
an
internal
detail,
then
even
if
we
make
the
wrong
decision,
we
can
go
back
and
fix
it
right.
A
A
This
is
an
example
of
something
where,
like
you
know,
someone's
asking
me
like
how
like
what
I,
what
low-hanging
fruit
do
we
have
for
for
making
incredible
better-
and
I
was
thinking
of
something
like
things
like
this,
but
I
didn't
at
the
time
say
things
like
this
that
I'm
talking
about
so
okay,
there's
been
some
progress.
Perf
has
been
run,
pr
is
conflicts
and
it
sounds
like
this
basically
wesley's
been
owning
this
in
terms
of
reviewing
it.
So
I
don't
know
what
else
to
do
there
besides
just
letting
it
keep
moving
forward.
A
A
B
A
C
A
See
I
see
there
was
commentary
from
wesley
17
days
ago.
I
think
what
it
was
in
the
meeting
is,
we
sort
of
said
we
still
want
to
go
back
and
try
the
thin
index
vectors
and
like
like
instead
of
the
b
tree
bath,
I
think,
is
what
the
takeaway
is
there
I'll
go
back
and
review
the
last
meeting,
which
you
both
got
right.
I
shared
that
with
you.
I
believe
yes,
okay
and
so
I'll
add
an
action
for
myself
to
put
to
say
something
here.
A
A
A
A
So
the
compiler
team
sprint
was
that
that
was
something
I
think
we
really
were
intending
on
talking.
We
did
talk
about
the
last
thing.
That's
why
this
item
is
on
here
yeah
and
then
in
the
actual
planning
meeting
for
the
sprint,
we
decided
to
change
focus
or
you
know.
Basically,
there
was
enough
feedback
saying
no
focus
shouldn't
be
incremental
violation;
it
should
be
on
memory
usage,
so
that
meant
we
sort
of
scrapped
a
fair
amount
of
stuff
that
we've
been
thinking
about.
A
A
The
other
thing,
though,
is
in
terms
of
the
actual
sprint
in
march,
I
still
am
curious.
Whether,
like
you
know,
memories
memory
usage
is
the
focus,
how
much
of
that
could
be
in
our
wheelhouse
in
terms
of
the
memory
usage
of
the
incremental
compilation
structures
themselves,
I
have
no
idea
like
what
the
depth
map
and
stuff
like
that
ends
up
consuming
with
the
runtime
profiles.
I
have
never
really
looked
that
carefully
at
the
like.
I
I
I'm
aware
of
the
whatever
the
tool
is
called
on
the
memory
profile.
A
B
A
A
I
I'm
actively
working
on
trying
to
make
tooling
for
also
getting
instrumentation
from
within
the
compiler
about
memory
usage,
basically
based
on
some
ideas
that
idp
had
posted
years
ago,
and
so
I
think
that
I'm
going
to
try
to
use
employ
that
myself
locally
as
part
of
my
upcoming
work.
This
is
all
me
a
way
of
me
saying,
like
I
think
that
we
still
have
stuff
to
offer.
That's
stick
to
this
sprint,
and
so
it's
worthwhile
just
keeping
the
back
of
your
mind.
A
A
Okay,
so
that's
that's
all
I
want
to
say
there
and
then
we
have
the
same
issue
with
issue
triage.
Where
I
haven't
done
anything,
I
don't
think
we
want
to
do
it
live
right
now.
Do
you
all
have
anything
else
you
want
to
sort
of
add
to
the
oh?
Oh,
there
was
one
more
thing
I
want
to
make
sure
we
talked
about
did
either
of
you.
Neither
of
you
were
part
of
the
group.
That
said,
oh
yeah,
let's
help
with
the
before
the
perf
rlo
website,
right
on.
A
Busy
right,
yeah:
okay,
that's
fine!
I'm
not
expecting
your
input
on
that
in
terms
of
active
work,
but
I
do
think
that
a
huge
part
of
the
incremental
violation
or
sorry,
a
huge
part
of
the
perf
site
is
dedicated
to
stuff
about
incremental
violation
for
better
or
worse
and
so
again
that
kind
of
falls
into
our
wheelhouse
about.
A
A
Either
have
them
back
your
mind
or
take
notes
or
whatever.
I
think
that
it'll
be
useful
to
have
some
sort
of
feedback
there
as
we
go
into
revising
the
site,
because
I
personally
am
very
worried
about
us
over
the
current
site,
I
think,
is
over
biased
towards
incremental
compilation
data,
and
I
worry
about
that,
meaning
that
the
cases
that
some
people
care
the
most
about
are
underweighted
in
terms
of
the
presentation
of
the
data.
B
C
A
A
A
I'm
not
sure.
I
think
that
the
idea
that
you
know
looking
at
things
like
dropping
unused,
unreferenced
external
creation,
I
triggle
recompile
that
the
fact
that
that
industrial
recompile
is
interesting
and
might
be
a
sign
of
like
something
deeper
that
needs
to
be
fixed.
I
don't
know
so
I
I
don't,
but
I
don't
know
if
trying
to
identify
that
the
highest
bang
for
buck
issue
is,
is
as
important
right
now
versus
just
like.
What
do
you
think
you
have
the
best
chance
of
like
right.
C
A
Or
a
incorrect,
no,
I
said
wg
I
would
mostly
say
wg
because
I
was
like
there's
only
seven
of
them
and
so
it'll
be
easier
to
get
through
to
look
them
quickly.
That
was
my
own
bias
there
in
terms
of
like
okay,
if
I'm
going
to
say
an
answer
right
now,
let's
look
at
like
the
short
list.
Yeah,
the
other
one
is
too
long
and
that's
we're
still
the
process.
There
is
we're
just
trying
to
triage
those
right,
yeah
yeah
they
there
might
be
a
lot
of
there.
Are
there.
A
A
Okay,
it
sounds
like
we're
basically
done,
then
I
will.
My
plan
is
to
take
the
same
approach
with
this
meeting
that
I
took
with
the
last
one
in
terms
of
putting
it
up
on
youtube
and
making
it
unlisted
and
then
sharing
the
link
with
whoever
wants
it
from
this
working
group
right.
I
I
debate
I'm
still
debating.
C
A
A
Right
because
to
me,
if
nothing
else,
it
makes
me
less
stressed
about
the
link,
like
you
know,
trying
to
protect
the
link
like
saying
it's
going
to
be
public
means
I
can
do
things
like
put
the
link
in
the
chat
room
and
not
worry
about
it.
Okay
sounds
good
thanks.
You
thanks.
You
too
talk
to
you
later
bye.