[PATCH] [v5] BPF backend
chandlerc at google.com
Tue Jan 13 19:18:24 PST 2015
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 03:09:09PM +0000, Renato Golin wrote:
> > On 12 January 2015 at 21:07, Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm still not sure who suppose to approve it.
> > Used to be Chris, though it may have changed.
> > If not, I think if Chandler, Eric, Anton, Tom and others are happy
> > with, it should be fine, no?
> There's not a well defined process for adding a new backend, so
> usually it ends up being Chris who gives the final approval. FWIW,
> I thinks this is OK to merge.
I think historically Evan has actually been more involved in shepherding
new backends into LLVM.
However, I don't think there is any reason to hold up a new backend if
there are multiple active contributors to backends and the common code
generator who are happy with this addition and none of the active
maintainers speaking up against it or with specific concerns.
(I'd like a chance to glance through the code a bit myself before given
explicit support, but will do so soon)
FWIW, I think that once you have a few active backend maintainers who are
explicitly supportive, you should just start a *new* thread on llvmdev (so
it doesn't get lost with the others) and say "Heads up, BPF backend review
is coming to a close over on llvm-commits <link to thread>. It will be
landing sometime next week. Just want folks to have a chance to post any
comments if they haven't already".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-commits