llvm dev - May 2016 - Is the CppBackend still supported?

+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 it do all this work if the backend can be so out of date and no one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/c1e51808/attachment.html>

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/d7a5d204/attachment.html>

Except that it shows you a *bad* way to use the APIs, since it doesn't use
IRBuilder which is by far the better way to build IR in the C++ API.

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Stanislav Manilov via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b8bf7b73/attachment.html>

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/cc4d0c39/attachment-0001.html>