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

[Matthias Braun via llvm-dev]

The question I want answered as a community member, is what happens when I push a patch to say the register allocator or the scheduler and the lanai buildbot reports a breakage. While I should obviously revert my patch how would I go forward when I cannot figure out the reason? This is especially bad if I can't get access to additional information to understand the generated instructions; Lanai is still missing from docs/CompilerWriterInfo.rst for example.

- Matthias

> On Jul 25, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 26 July 2016 at 00:08, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> It is unquestionably easier for a contributor to land their backend in-tree
>> than to maintain it out-of-tree.  This is because landing it in tree shifts
>> the maintenance burden from the *contributor* to the *community*.  If there
>> is low value to the community, then this is a "bad deal” for the project as
>> a whole, since there is only so much attention to go around.
> 
> This expresses my idea very clearly.
> 
> The initial Lanai thread had hints that this could be at play, though
> they seem to be releasing emulators and documents, which to mee it
> seems like that was just FUD.
> 
> However, the fact that people did consider it means they care about
> not being tossed a piece of code to baby sit, and this has *nothing*
> to do with the license.
> 
> I'll start the discussion in a new thread, since it's not appropriate
> to steal the Lanai discussion to that topic. Please, let's continue
> there (Target Acceptance Policy).
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev