[LLVMdev] RFC: Staging area proposal for new backends (original) (raw)

Tom Stellard thomas.stellard at amd.com
Mon Jul 30 11🔞31 PDT 2012

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:54:21PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote:

On Jul 27, 2012, at 7:05 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

> On Jul 27, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: >> >>> We also need to come up with a plan regarding cutting releases. When >>> 3.2 is branched, will all "staged" back-ends be removed? Or will >>> they be left in the distribution so interested parties can build >>> them? >>> >> >> I can't really think of any disadvantages to keeping staged backends >> in releases. Being in a release would help a backend get more exposure >> and increase the number of users/testers it would get. > > I agree, there is no reason to remove it from the source drop of the release. The binaries produced for each release shouldn't include them though. Sounds good to me, I agree that more exposure is best. In terms of build system integration, I think it makes sense to do the following: Add a ENABLEEXPERIMENTAL or ENABLESTAGING flag that allows experimental features to be built (default: OFF) Add an LLVMSTAGINGTARGETS list that contains all of the staging back-ends Allow LLVMTARGETSTOBUILD to contain a back-end from LLVMSTAGINGTARGETS only if ENABLESTAGING is ON This will allow the default configuration to not only skip the staging back-ends, but prohibit them from being built without explicitly setting ENABLESTAGING. Further, this will allow picking-and-choosing which staging back-ends to build.

Hi,

I've submitted a patch[1] that adds this option.

[1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120730/147282.html

Is there any reason not to try this out with the R600 target? > > -Chris >

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list