[LLVMdev] Suggested base version for adding a new backend?
Philip Reames
listmail at philipreames.com
Mon Sep 19 09:54:11 PDT 2011
Good morning,
What is the general consensus about using LLVM 2.9 vs tip of tree for
developing new backends? Is LLVM 2.9 still recent enough to make
forward porting easy once 3.0 comes out? Is tip of tree considered
stable enough for non-core development?
My reason for asking is that a fellow grad student and I are about to
start implementing a new backend for RISK-V - a research architecture
developed here at UC Berkeley. We're looking to focus our work on the
backend itself and do not currently intend to do core LLVM development.
As such, we're looking for a base which is going to be stable to work
with, but also easy to maintain as future releases come out.
Normally, I would be fairly confident in using LLVM 2.9 as a base, but
I've been following the mailing lists for a while now and there seems to
have been a fair amount of code churn and a whole new set of best
practices with respect to backends. I've also seen a couple of posts
asking about issues in 2.9 with responses that essentially came down to
"use TOT". Together, this leaves me wondering if 2.9 is such a good
base for development after all.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my question.
Philip Reames
Graduate Student
EECS, UC Berkeley
For anyone interested, the technical report covering the ISA for the
RISK-V architecture can be found here:
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2011/EECS-2011-62.pdf
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list