[llvm-dev] Is the CppBackend still supported?

[Stanislav Manilov via llvm-dev]

As in "look at the source of clang" or as in "look at the -S -emit-llvm"
output? If you mean the former, then would that be easy for someone who
hasn't seen the clang source before?

On Wed, May 4, 2016, 22:48 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> The usual advice I provide people is "see what Clang does with an
> equivalent C construct"
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Stanislav Manilov <
> stanislav.manilov at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/a4599aa8/attachment.html>