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. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120727/097773fc/attachment.html>
Justin Holewinski
2012-Jul-28 02:54 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: Staging area proposal for new backends
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 ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL or ENABLE_STAGING flag that allows experimental features to be built (default: OFF) Add an LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS list that contains all of the staging back-ends Allow LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD to contain a back-end from LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS *only* if ENABLE_STAGING 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 ENABLE_STAGING. Further, this will allow picking-and-choosing which staging back-ends to build. Is there any reason not to try this out with the R600 target?> > -Chris >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120727/4be068ae/attachment.html>
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 ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL or ENABLE_STAGING flag that allows experimental features to be built (default: OFF) > Add an LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS list that contains all of the staging back-ends > Allow LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD to contain a back-end from LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS *only* if ENABLE_STAGING 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 ENABLE_STAGING. 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 > > >