[PATCH] D133214: [docs][RISCV] Document experimental extensions

Alex Bradbury via Phabricator via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Sep 8 10:22:52 PDT 2022


asb accepted this revision.
asb added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

LGTM in that I'd be happy for this to land as-is and to continue iterating in future reviews. I've left a couple of comments inline though.



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/RISCVUsage.rst:97
+
+The primary goal of experimental support is to assist in the process of ratification by providing an existence proof of an implementation, and simplifying efforts to validate the value of a proposed extension against large code bases.  Experimental extensions are expected to either transition to ratified status, or be eventually removed.  The decision on whether to accept an experimental extension is currently done on an entirely case by case basis; if you want to propose one, attending the bi-weekly RISC-V sync-up call is strongly advised.
+
----------------
Two thoughts here - if there's something you'd like to take from it in another revision of this patch that's great, but I'm also equally happy to land this as-is and continue work in follow-up patches.

I actually have a slightly different perspective on this. I think there's a second goal that is at least as important as supporting ratification, which is to help avoid duplicated or wasted effort on downstream forks and to avoid the problems (technical, potentially even licensing) that would ensue from later trying to merge a work from a long-lived downstream work that had been developed outside of LLVM's standard collaboration infrastructure and methodologies. 

I'd maybe clarify that our policies on experimental extensions as they stand only apply to extensions that are understood to be on a path towards ratification as a standard extension. Perhaps changing "The decision on whether to accept an experimental extension is currently done on an entirely case by case basis, though as it stands we've only agreed a policy that allows accepting such extensions if they are understood to be on a path towards eventual ratification as a standard RISC-V extension."

In case you hadn't seen it, see [here](https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/138364.html) for more background.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D133214/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D133214



More information about the llvm-commits mailing list