llvm dev - Jul 2012 - [LLVMdev] RFC: Staging area proposal for new backends

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>

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
> > 
>