[llvm-dev] Is the CppBackend still supported?
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed May 4 14:48:10 PDT 2016
The usual advice I provide people is "see what Clang does with an
equivalent C construct"
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Stanislav Manilov <
stanislav.manilov at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is another benefit to keeping the CppBackend: it's great for
> learning how to use the IR and the C++ API in particular, as can be seen
> from this SO Q&A:
> But I'll understand if it's considered too much of a burden to keep. I can
> send a patch for the part that I was trying to use, but there's probably a
> lot to fix for it to fully work.
> - Stan
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:21 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Filipe Cabecinhas via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Ronan KERYELL via llvm-dev
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2016 16:36:01 -0400, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> said:
>>> > Rafael> Care to send a patch deleting it? :-)
>>> > On the other hand these requests come back from time to time on the
>>> > mailing list and it is still used in many attics of various projects as
>>> > a de-facto internal representation to interface with other tools for
>>> > technical/marketing/political/... reasons.
>>> Doesn't seem like it is, if it seems to be broken since some 2013
>>> It might be in use for projects using older llvm releases, of course.
>>> But those haven't updated their llvm library for a long time, so this
>>> wouldn't be their major problem.
>>> > So sending a patch to resurrect it in a more modern new life might be
>>> > also considered instead of many people crafting some half-working
>>> > ashamed kludges far from the sight... :-)
>>> Not really. There's no reason to spend the effort just because "in the
>>> future someone might use it".
>>> If you're saying "I have some half-working things and CppBackend would
>>> be awesome for me", then I guess no one would object to you working on
>>> it, and people would actually help if you needed advice/patch review,
>>> But if we have no one actively interested, and there has been no
>>> active development to the point where it's plain broken since a long
>>> time ago, then we probably want to start proposing its deletion.
>>> There's no point in having people who aren't interested in maintaining
>>> it do all this work if the backend can be so out of date and no one
>>> If it's not usable now and almost no one complains about it being
>>> broken (outside the occasional "Is this working? No.", will those
>>> people notice if it's gone? :-)
>>> Thank you,
>>> > --
>>> > Ronan KERYELL
>>> > Xilinx Research Labs, Dublin, Ireland
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev