The LLVM area team (@arsenm, @fhahn, @nikic) is holding bi-weekly public meetings on Wednesday 16:00-17:00 CET starting Feb 19 (calendar invite).
The meeting notes can be found here: meeting notes
The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss ongoing RFCs, to make sure that they keep moving along.
Hi @nikic , thanks for this message, I was unaware of the llvm area meetings and its format but this looks very useful.
I went through the notes and noticed that one of our RFCs, loop-interchange, was discussed (thanks! 
), for which a question was raised. My question is: what is the best way for me to provide an update or answer? Attend the next area team meeting, edit the notes, tag you on the merge request, reply here, all of the above?
To quickly provide an answer here: loop-interchange is still one of our highest priorities, so we haven’t forgotten about it, we would like to see it get enabled and the sooner the better. We focused a lot on compile-times and have reduced that significantly and we think that is in a very good state. This information might be a bit scattered over the different patches that addressed that, will see if I can provide a summary on the loop-interchange enablement merge request later today. We have addressed all correctness issues, and also made it quite a bit more pessimistic to achieve this just to get a first version enabled. So, we think loop-interchange is ready. However, it depends on DependenceAnalysis, which we also promised to fix, but this is where we hit a few a few delays and are now blocked on two patches:
The former looks minor, which you have already reviewed, so if you could have a look again that would be great (and thanks in advance). The latter is more fundamental, we need to extract more information to solve the depenence problem, and I am not entirely sure we have a good answer for this yet. Maybe @sebpop or @Meinersbur can elaborate, and if you want to have a look too maybe… But this is where we are with the loop-interchange enablement.
The best place is probably to update the RFC thread itself, I think the understanding was the RFC didn’t appear stuck, in that it was waiting for feedback.
Ok, thanks, will do!