[llvm-dev] [RFC] Lanai backend

[C Bergström via llvm-dev]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I dunno.
> We consistently tell pretty much everyone we'd love for them to work
> upstream. We see orgs work on general optimizations, etc, out of tree, and
> tell them "you really should try to upstream it".   I can't count the number
> of times people say this to others at the dev conference, no *matter what
> they are doing*.
>
> It's one thing when the developers in question just want a backend and
> contribute nothing else and want everyone else to deal with it and keep it
> running.  I'd agree that provides burden and nothing else.  That seems
> pretty unlikely here.
>
> It's not like the optimizations/general infrastructure we are writing/people
> improve gets used in a vacuum. It's meant to speed up code on various
> platforms.   IMHO, given what we try to encourage as best practices, it
> seems fundamentally wrong deliberately tell others (who seem to want to work
> with the community, and are otherwise likely to be good contributors):
> "yeah, we really don't want you to contribute to LLVM upstream" or "Yeah,
> well, we'll take your general contributions, but we don't want the rest of
> your stuff, no matter how well designed/architected".  Attracting
> contributors is a two way street that requires a show of good faith and
> understanding on both sides.

I'm rarely the warm fuzzy person, but I really like this view.

In reply to Hal's reply:

Even for educational use I hope Google or the "owner" would clarify
what's permitted or any related patents. I'm not trying to create
obstacles, but it's good to have as many facts as possible.
(Personally I do think such clarification is a blocker, but being
encumbered wouldn't necessarily be a blocker)