[LLVMdev] LLC ARM Backend maintainer
rajav at codeaurora.org
Thu Oct 13 10:33:59 PDT 2011
I think we need a group of maintainers rather than a single maintainer given
the spectrum of ARM targets/ISAs/platforms required to support and the
amount of people/system resources required. I & my team plan to actively
participate in the bug-fixing process during the release cycle. If we can
divide the bugs among the maintainers and establish a requirement that all
open ARM bugs must be fixed/addressed (at least analyzed if cannot be fixed)
by release time, it will go a long way in ensuring high quality releases for
From: Joe Abbey [mailto:jabbey at arxan.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:01 AM
To: Renato Golin
Cc: Anton Korobeynikov; rajav at codeaurora.org; James Molloy;
llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLC ARM Backend maintainer
Admittedly we're very interested in becoming ARM backend maintainers as our
product heavily relies on LLVM.
However, we don't have testing resources to test both our product and LLVM
on a host of target boards. We have some chumbys, beagleboards, iPhones,
iPod Touches, tables, Android Phones, etc. And most of those are already
booked solid with our own regression tests (most of which are based on
Could ARM enable us with testing hardware/resources?
Arxan Technologies, Inc.
1305 Cumberland Ave, Ste 215
West Lafayette, IN 47906
W: 765-889-4756 x2
jabbey at arxan.com
On Oct 13, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
On 11 October 2011 18:22, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
1. We should define which ARM-related features (in general, e.g.
platforms, cores, modes, etc.) we consider "release important"
2. We should define the conditions how the features in 1. should be tested
3. Someone should perform such testing for each release, provide help
with reproduction of the problems (consider e.g. PR11107, w/o Bill's
help it would be extremely hard to reproduce the problem, since it
manifests only on arm/darwin).
4. We should be able to guarantee that release-blocking bugs on ARM
targets will be fixed (if technically possible) before the actual
There is no point in define ARM as a release-blocking target if there
is no commitment in actually fixing release bugs. What keeps ARM on
the bench is just the lack of general commitment. Somebody has to own
it, for real.
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev