[llvm-dev] [RFC] Make Lanai backend non-experimental

[Jacques Pienaar via llvm-dev]

Hey,

That sounds good. We are:
* Open-sourcing functional simulator to verify execution;
* Publishing ISA spec document that could serve as official reference
- the previously published documentation is out-of-date;

I've created a patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22530) that adds Lanai
as one of the default targets.

Thanks,

Jacques

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Renato
>
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> A few basic rules to get accepted are if:
> * the target exists and can be easily purchased / emulated for
> investigating problems,
> * there are official documents / specs published by the project /
> company that maintains the targets,
> * there is a reasonable community maintaining the rest of the system
> (firmware, OS, other tools, etc),
> * enough people commit themselves to maintain the LLVM back-end to
> avoid bit-rot,
> * the back-end is free of contentious features that would mean
> breaking every other target.
>
> This is an excellent list.  We should probably have something like it in the
> docs if we don’t already.
>
>
> Agree with Pete.
>
> I’d add (because the community will have to maintain it somehow):
> - good code quality and documentation
> - good testing (small tests, documented, with good coverage).
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>
> I have no problem with Lanai in LLVM (non-experimentally) if it meets most
> of these criteria to some degree.  Obviously that doesn’t mean every target
> in LLVM needs to have detailed microarchitecture documents, but a basic ISA
> should be publicly available.  Personally I also think the ability to at
> least simulate the code is very important too.
>
> I tried googling it but mostly found news reports about the existence of the
> backend, not documentation or anything else.
>
> I think the Lanai community have done an excellent job meeting the last 2
> points.  However, I’d really appreciate more information on the first 3.  I
> think meeting each of them (even minimally) is important to leave
> experimental status.
>
> Thanks,
> Pete
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>