[LLVMdev] Suggested base version for adding a new backend?
gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com
Mon Sep 19 10:59:15 PDT 2011
Personally I would use TOT.
Obviously my 2 cents
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:54, Philip Reames wrote:
> Good morning,
> What is the general consensus about using LLVM 2.9 vs tip of tree for
> developing new backends? Is LLVM 2.9 still recent enough to make
> forward porting easy once 3.0 comes out? Is tip of tree considered
> stable enough for non-core development?
> My reason for asking is that a fellow grad student and I are about to
> start implementing a new backend for RISK-V - a research architecture
> developed here at UC Berkeley. We're looking to focus our work on the
> backend itself and do not currently intend to do core LLVM development.
> As such, we're looking for a base which is going to be stable to work
> with, but also easy to maintain as future releases come out.
> Normally, I would be fairly confident in using LLVM 2.9 as a base, but
> I've been following the mailing lists for a while now and there seems to
> have been a fair amount of code churn and a whole new set of best
> practices with respect to backends. I've also seen a couple of posts
> asking about issues in 2.9 with responses that essentially came down to
> "use TOT". Together, this leaves me wondering if 2.9 is such a good
> base for development after all.
> Thank you for taking the time to consider my question.
> Philip Reames
> Graduate Student
> EECS, UC Berkeley
> For anyone interested, the technical report covering the ISA for the
> RISK-V architecture can be found here:
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the llvm-dev