[LLVMdev] The MBlaze backend: can we remove it?

[Chris Lattner]

On Feb 5, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
>>        I propose to remove the MBlaze backend on Friday if none step
>>        forward as a maintainer. Currently, folks are having to keep it
>>        up to date when changing shared parts of the backend with no help.

I fully support removing it.

> There is even qemu support for microblaze.
> I think it's excessive to remove a port so easily.

That's not how we work.  Unless there is *at least* an active maintainer, a port should be removed.  The architecture being possibly relevant is not sufficient to keep it alive.

The LLVM MBlaze backend, AFAIK, has never even had an active user base.

> It may have to wait for funding to be resurrected.


Even more reason for us to remove it.  Upon possible resurrection, the code can be retrieved from SVN.

> Once you announce that you want to remove it, you should wait at least a year.
> gcc had ports that nobody used for 10 years before they finally deleted them.

Working like GCC has never been a goal of the LLVM community, for good reason :-)

-Chris