[llvm-dev] [RFC] Lanai backend

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

On 02/09/2016 09:35 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote:
> The one problem you identify, the burden of running code on  backends 
> for proprietary hardware, seems pretty tractable to solve. For 
> example, one possible option:
> We don't let people revert patches for *runtime* failures in backends 
> that nobody can run.
> (IE you update the API, try to do the right thing, and if it passes 
> the regression tests, that's that. Even for code gen tests, if it's 
> not obvious what the right code to generate is, that's the maintainers 
> problem).
For the record, I really like this suggestion.

I think for the moment, we've settled on experimental status which is 
actually an even weaker support level, but if we ever decide to upgrade 
this backend to a more fully supported status or introduce another 
backend with a similar positioning, having this as a clearly stated 
position would be invaluable.  Possibly, this should even be our default 
for anything not a tier1 commodity hardware platform.

Philip