[llvm-dev] Is the CppBackend still supported?

[Stanislav Manilov via llvm-dev]

Hi,

There is another benefit to keeping the CppBackend: it's great for learning
how to use the IR and the C++ API in particular, as can be seen from this
SO Q&A:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16656855/llvm-ir-string-initialization

But I'll understand if it's considered too much of a burden to keep. I can
send a patch for the part that I was trying to use, but there's probably a
lot to fix for it to fully work.

Cheers,
 - Stan

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:21 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Filipe Cabecinhas via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Ronan KERYELL via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2016 16:36:01 -0400, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> said:
>> >
>> >     Rafael> Care to send a patch deleting it? :-)
>> >
>> > On the other hand these requests come back from time to time on the
>> > mailing list and it is still used in many attics of various projects as
>> > a de-facto internal representation to interface with other tools for
>> > technical/marketing/political/... reasons.
>> Doesn't seem like it is, if it seems to be broken since some 2013 changes.
>> It might be in use for projects using older llvm releases, of course.
>> But those haven't updated their llvm library for a long time, so this
>> wouldn't be their major problem.
>>
>> > So sending a patch to resurrect it in a more modern new life might be
>> > also considered instead of many people crafting some half-working
>> > ashamed kludges far from the sight... :-)
>> Not really. There's no reason to spend the effort just because "in the
>> future someone might use it".
>> If you're saying "I have some half-working things and CppBackend would
>> be awesome for me", then I guess no one would object to you working on
>> it, and people would actually help if you needed advice/patch review,
>> etc.
>>
>> But if we have no one actively interested, and there has been no
>> active development to the point where it's plain broken since a long
>> time ago, then we probably want to start proposing its deletion.
>> There's no point in having people who aren't interested in maintaining
>> it do all this work if the backend can be so out of date and no one
>> notices.
>> If it's not usable now and almost no one complains about it being
>> broken (outside the occasional "Is this working? No.", will those
>> people notice if it's gone? :-)
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>   Filipe
>>
>> > --
>> >   Ronan KERYELL
>> >   Xilinx Research Labs, Dublin, Ireland
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160504/d7a5d204/attachment.html>