[llvm-commits] RFC: LLVM incubation, or requirements for committing new backends

[Eric Christopher]

On Jul 16, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote:

> I am in favor of this.  I think having specific criteria and time lines
> will be beneficial for both maintainers and reviewers.
> 
> However, instead of having a separate branch, what do you think about
> adding the backend to the main tree, but not building it by default.
> This would make it easier for the backend maintainer to keep it up to date
> and also make it easier for users to test it.  At the same time, the
> backend maintainer would still be responsible for updating it for changes
> to the LLVM core API, so other developers wouldn't need to worry about
> breaking the "backend-in-training".

Actually a branch is a better idea for a couple of reasons:

1) It'll help show that you're dedicated to the idea of maintaining the target, and
2) If the overhead of merging is too high for the target there are probably patches
that need to be either a) upstreamed or b) the target needs to be rewritten since it
shouldn't affect the main code base.

The part about other users is a good idea, but how often are users (not developers)
checking out a copy of random ToT llvm in order to use it?

-eric