[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [RFC] Backend for Motorola 6800 series CPU (M68k)

[Min-Yih Hsu via cfe-dev]

> On Oct 1, 2020, at 2:38 AM, Simon Pilgrim via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Its awesome to see so much progress on this!
> 
> 
Thank you!
> A very minor question - why is it called M680x0 and not M68K given that's what the target arch/triple is and how its usually referred to?
> 
> 
I think it’s a legit question, IIRC Jessica also had the same question in one of the patches here. I think the primary reason is that we want to conform with GCC’s target triple, which came before our work.

Also I think in our patch, m680x0 is the only valid target triple.

Thank you
Min
> Sorry for the bikeshedding....
> 
> Simon.
> 
> On 30/09/2020 21:14, Min-Yih Hsu via llvm-dev wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> I've composed a draft roadmap for this new target. I've decided to try Github's "Projects" feature, as it provides a clearer view to see all the blockers and action items, IMAO. Here is the link:
>> https://github.com/M680x0/M680x0-mono-repo/projects <https://github.com/M680x0/M680x0-mono-repo/projects>
>> 
>> Currently I only created two major milestones: Becoming an experimental target and becoming an official target. For each milestone, I've listed the expected features, estimated time frame (though I'm not really confident on that), and most importantly, the blockers for the milestone.
>> Fortunately, all of our essential features are complete (e.g. ISel, MC), so there will be more house cleaning tasks and bug fixing than adding new features in the second milestone.
>> 
>> In addition to the aforementioned two milestones, I've added "be able to run toy programs" as a separate milestone to accommodate some more urgent tasks right now. More specifically, driver problems that make Clang unable to leverage all our components.
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> Min
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:27 AM Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com <mailto:rengolin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 18:53, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de <mailto:glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de>> wrote:
>> So, shall we setup a server for that or is there some existing infrastructure
>> from LLVM that is used in this case?
>> 
>> Unfortunately, we don't have a centralised infrastructure like GCC. Each target community is responsible for maintaining their own buildbots.
>> 
>> All we provide is the "build master", which aggregates all builds, email when there are regressions, etc.
>> 
>> http://llvm.org/docs/HowToAddABuilder.html <http://llvm.org/docs/HowToAddABuilder.html>
>> 
>> It should be trivial to copy & paste an existing bot config and change to add the experimental hardware (once it's in the tree).
>> 
>> Pay attention to the version of buildbot you install, as using an even slightly different version can cause weird errors.
>> 
>> (I'm sure you understand how many times we tried to move on for the past 10 years... :)
>> 
>> 
>> As far as I understand, 90% of the tests already pass (according to Min).
>> 
>> Awesome! We have buildbots with test-suite running, you can copy those, too. There were some QEMU bots in the past, I'm not sure they're around, but the infra to run them should still be there.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> --renato
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Min-Yih Hsu
>> Ph.D Student in ICS Department, University of California, Irvine (UCI).
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20201001/b1654e0c/attachment.html>