[LLVMdev] Suggested base version for adding a new backend?

Garrison Venn 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:
> http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2011/EECS-2011-62.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list