[PATCH] D136968: [RISCV][docs] Add some wording around vendor extensions

[Alex Bradbury via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

asb added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/RISCVUsage.rst:156
+
+Inclusion of a vendor extension will be considered on a case by case basis.  All proposals should be brought to the bi-weekly RISCV sync calls for discussion.  For a general idea of the factors likely to be considered, please see the `Clang documentation <https://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html>`_.
+
----------------
reames wrote:
> asb wrote:
> > "for discussion" -> "for initial discussion, which may lead to a request to write up an RFC on LLVM's Discourse".
> > 
> > We don't have a policy here yet - I suspect it might not be the case that _every_ vendor extension needs an RFC (e.g. cases where there's a small number of instructions supported only at the MC layer), but I think it would be good to flag that there are cases where broader LLVM developer buy-in might be necessary, and also make it clear that nothing in this document implies discussion on the sync-up calls bypasses that.
> I landed without this change because I didn't feel the wording you suggested clarified meaning.  I understand your point, but "for discussion" doesn't imply anything to me about it being a final discussion or otherwise bypassing usual decision making.
> 
> I'm open to trying to clarify this if you think it's needed, but I think it probably needs phrased differently.  
I can't immediately think of better phrasing and it's not a big deal either way. I think you see what I'm trying to clarify but I agree attempts to do so perhaps just make it more verbose and less clear.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D136968/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D136968