[llvm-dev] Status of the ARC backend

[Fangrui Song via llvm-dev]

On 2020-02-14, Nico Weber via llvm-dev wrote:
>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

ARC is another experimental target Nico forgot to mention in
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-February/139158.html .

What is its status?