[llvm-dev] Target Acceptance Policy

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 4 August 2016 at 17:31, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> (1) The list says nothing about using (appropiate) LLVM infrastructure
> like the MC subsystem. Should it be a requirements for (new) targets to
> support the full source-to-object chain?

Hi Joerg,

This is a clear task for code review, not target inclusion policy.

This list is supposed to be timeless, and adding any kind of specific
technology would need updating all the time, and can even have
conflicting views (like MCJIT vs ORCJIT vs the new cool toy), or the
old pass manager, vs. the new one, or FastISel vs SelectionDAG vs.
GlobalISel, etc.


> (2) What are the criterions for reviving targets? Consider the Alpha or
> Itanium target.

When a target is deprecated, it probably means its code is so old and
rotten that it doesn't work any more, or that whatever it was meant to
be doing, it's not doing any more.

With that in mind, if anyone wants to modernise the code, they'll
probably have to re-write most of it, and then it becomes a new
back-end.

Also, the community of deprecated targets has clearly failed some of
the pre-requisites, so asking them to prove again would only be fair.

cheers,
--renato