[llvm-dev] Moving the AVR backend out of experimental

[Nico Weber via llvm-dev]

Pros:
- LLVM's release binaries contain AVR support :)
- It'd happen to remove the only backend that's currently marked
experimental, which imho makes the build config easier to understand

Cons:
- Everyone gets to pay the cost for maintaining AVR for cross-cutting
changes. From the last 3 months, this seems to happen once or twice a
month. We have a bit over 100 commits/day, so that seems fine.
- By default all backends get linked, so all binaries get larger by the
size of the AVR backend (but people who care probably already have an
explicit list of enabled targets)

Mixed:
- The AVR backend will likely grow more users, which might expose bugs :)

>From an outsider's perspective (mine), the AVR backend seems in better
shape than some non-experimental targets.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:13 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote:

> What do you see as the pros and cons of making it a stable target?  Does
> anyone else have any concerns about doing so?
>
> -Chris
>
> On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> +better dylanmckay address
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:58 AM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There was a thread a few days ago about the expectations for experimental
>> targets. At the moment, the only experimental target is AVR. It's been in
>> the tree for a long time now, and generally seems well-behaved.
>>
>> Should we just make it a normal target?
>>
>> Nico
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20200214/b7c56b0b/attachment.html>