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

Hi,

I would like to follow up on the recent discussion on the mailing list
about requirements for new backends[1] by submitting the following
proposal for a staging area for new LLVM backends.  This proposal
incorporates ideas from Owen, Chandler, and others who chimed in on
the original thread, and I hope the LLVM developers will be able to
come to a consensus on this proposal or a modified version, so the
project is able to accept new backends.

The goals of the staging area will be:
  1. Facilitate communication between the LLVM project and backend
     developers
  2. Ensure that new backends meet LLVM standards
  3. Give the backend more exposure to users and prospective developers

++ Staging Area:

Similar to the Linux kernel, the staging area for new backends will
be in the main LLVM tree, with building of the backend being disabled
by default.  There will also be a TODO file in the backend's root
directory, that contains a list of improvements that are required to
promote the backend out of the staging area.  The backend will be
assigned a steward who's role will be to guide the backend through
the staging process and help solicit feedback from other developers.

There are several advantages to having the staging area be in the main
tree as opposed to a separate branch:

1. It will be easier for LLVM developers to become familiar with the
   new backend and identify areas for improvement.

  If the new backend is in the main tree, LLVM developers are more
  likely to encounter it in their day to day development.  Imagine a
  scenario where a developer makes a change to LLVM core that impacts
  several backends.  The developer may grep the code looking for
  backends that make use of the feature that they have added or
  changed.  If the new backend is in tree and uses that feature,
  the developer will see the code and might take a few moments to
  read through.  While doing this the developer may notice an area for
  improvement for the backend and can update the backends's TODO file.
  The end result of this is that the LLVM developer has been able to
  provide some feedback with a minimal time commitment on their part.

  If the backend were staged in a separate tree, this kind of
  simple review would not be possible, and I would be concerned that
  developers would be too busy to ever get around to checking out
  the staging tree.

2. It will allow the backend developers to always develop against TOT.

  Developing against TOT is the recommended development procedure for
  anyone working on LLVM, and this is regularly reiterated on the
  mailing list.  If the new backend is included in the main tree,
  the backend developers will have no choice but to work against TOT.

3. It will make it easier for end users and distributions to test and
   also make it easier for new contributors.

  New backends will be more visible to the public if they are in the
  main tree.  This will mean more users, an expanded testing base, and
  more potential developers which will lead to a higher quality backend.


++ Promotion/Demotion from staging area:

  After a period of time, or when the tasks in the TODO file have been
  completed, the backend developers or the steward can initiate the
  review process.  The review process will be conducted by either the
  steward, a committee, or some select developers, who will decide
  (maybe by vote in the case of a committee) whether the backend
  should be:

  - Promoted = Build of backend will be enabled by default.
  - Extended = Backend remains in the staging area.
  - Demoted  = Removed from the main tree
    (I can't really think of any disadvantages to having a backend be
    in the main tree as long as its not being built by default, so maybe
    demotion would be reserved for cases of long term absence
    of maintainership)

  The Promoted/Extended/Demoted decision will be made using the
  following criteria (These won't necessarily all be absolutely
  required, they merely serve as a way for a backend's progress to
  be measured) :

  - Progress towards completion of TODO tasks
  - Active maintainership
  - Use of incremental development techniques
  - Adherence to LLVM coding style
  - Usage of modern LLVM features
  - Quality and quantity of regression tests
  - Availability of buildbots
  - Size of user base
  - Other criteria deemed important by LLVM developers

  - Contributions to core LLVM
    In the previous mailing list discussions there were differing
    opinions of how important contributing to the core LLVM code is
    for having a backend accepted.  It seems like a good middle ground
    would be that backends should be free of code that works around
    bugs or deficiency in core LLVM and instead fix the problem in
    shared code, and also should make an effort to push optimization
    passes that may be useful to other targets into the shared parts
    of the code.


++ What is needed from the LLVM developers:

  In order to make this staging program successful, the LLVM project
  will need to appoint a "code owner" for the staging process, who
  backend developers can contact when they are interested in getting
  the backend included in the main tree.  An LLVM developer will also
  be needed to act as a steward for the new backend and help guide
  the backend developers through the process.

Looking forward to comments on this proposal.

Thanks,
Tom Stellard

[1]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120716/146560.html

I hope the official git repos could become staging-ready.
I guess Tom would prefer git ;)

Unfortunately, for now, most of our buildbots are not git-ready.

...Takumi

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:58:15AM +0900, NAKAMURA Takumi
wrote:
> I hope the official git repos could become staging-ready.
> I guess Tom would prefer git ;)
> 
> Unfortunately, for now, most of our buildbots are not git-ready.
> 
> ...Takumi
> 
Hi,

For this proposal it shouldn't matter what VCS is used, but my
assumption was that the staging area would be in the SVN tree.
The git mirrors should still be able to pick up staged backends, right?

-Tom

On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> The goals of the staging area will be:
>  1. Facilitate communication between the LLVM project and backend
>     developers
>  2. Ensure that new backends meet LLVM standards
>  3. Give the backend more exposure to users and prospective developers
FWIW, I really like this idea or concept, but we have to be careful for it to be
done right. This is also more general than just backends: experimental
optimizers and runtime libraries can also benefit from something like this.
> ++ Staging Area:
> 
> Similar to the Linux kernel, the staging area for new backends will
> be in the main LLVM tree, with building of the backend being disabled
> by default.
Makes sense.  Them being in the main tree isn't a problem as long as they
aren't built by default, tested in buildbots, etc.
> 1. It will be easier for LLVM developers to become familiar with the
>   new backend and identify areas for improvement.
> 
>  If the new backend is in the main tree, LLVM developers are more
>  likely to encounter it in their day to day development.  Imagine a
>  scenario where a developer makes a change to LLVM core that impacts
>  several backends.  The developer may grep the code looking for
>  backends that make use of the feature that they have added or
>  changed.
This makes sense, but it should not be a *requirement* that API changes
don't break experimental backends.  This would be the responsibility of the
contributors/owner of that backend and/or steward to make sure it keeps
building.  Of course it's great for someone to update all the experimental
backends if they want, but it shouldn't be a requirement.
>  If the backend were staged in a separate tree, this kind of
>  simple review would not be possible, and I would be concerned that
>  developers would be too busy to ever get around to checking out
>  the staging tree.
Yep.
> 2. It will allow the backend developers to always develop against TOT.
> 
>  Developing against TOT is the recommended development procedure for
>  anyone working on LLVM, and this is regularly reiterated on the
>  mailing list.  If the new backend is included in the main tree,
>  the backend developers will have no choice but to work against TOT.
+1!!!
> 3. It will make it easier for end users and distributions to test and
>   also make it easier for new contributors.
> 
>  New backends will be more visible to the public if they are in the
>  main tree.  This will mean more users, an expanded testing base, and
>  more potential developers which will lead to a higher quality backend.
I'd also add:

4. Infrastructure enhancements that are only required for an experimental
backend can be implemented in the main tree, even if that infrastructure
isn't needed by other targets.  Of course, these changes need to meet the
standard quality bar for general code in the compiler.

In the past, we've had some general infrastructure features get denied
because they didn't relate to any targets in-tree.
> ++ What is needed from the LLVM developers:
> 
>  In order to make this staging program successful, the LLVM project
>  will need to appoint a "code owner" for the staging process, who
>  backend developers can contact when they are interested in getting
>  the backend included in the main tree.  An LLVM developer will also
>  be needed to act as a steward for the new backend and help guide
>  the backend developers through the process.
I think we also need to define the minimum quality bar for a backend to be
included.

Also, if we do this, can we demote CellSPU? :)

-Chris

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > The goals of the staging area will be:
> >  1. Facilitate communication between the LLVM project and backend
> >     developers
> >  2. Ensure that new backends meet LLVM standards
> >  3. Give the backend more exposure to users and prospective developers
>
> FWIW, I really like this idea or concept, but we have to be careful for it
> to be done right. This is also more general than just backends:
> experimental optimizers and runtime libraries can also benefit from
> something like this.
>
> > ++ Staging Area:
> >
> > Similar to the Linux kernel, the staging area for new backends will
> > be in the main LLVM tree, with building of the backend being disabled
> > by default.
>
> Makes sense.  Them being in the main tree isn't a problem as long as
they
> aren't built by default, tested in buildbots, etc.
>
So will new back-ends be allowed to begin development in the "staging
area?"  Let's say I want to develop a new back-end.  Would I be able to
start writing it in the LLVM main tree, or does it need to progress to a
certain point in an external repository first?

>
> > 1. It will be easier for LLVM developers to become familiar with the
> >   new backend and identify areas for improvement.
> >
> >  If the new backend is in the main tree, LLVM developers are more
> >  likely to encounter it in their day to day development.  Imagine a
> >  scenario where a developer makes a change to LLVM core that impacts
> >  several backends.  The developer may grep the code looking for
> >  backends that make use of the feature that they have added or
> >  changed.
>
> This makes sense, but it should not be a *requirement* that API changes
> don't break experimental backends.  This would be the responsibility of
the
> contributors/owner of that backend and/or steward to make sure it keeps
> building.  Of course it's great for someone to update all the
experimental
> backends if they want, but it shouldn't be a requirement.
>
> >  If the backend were staged in a separate tree, this kind of
> >  simple review would not be possible, and I would be concerned that
> >  developers would be too busy to ever get around to checking out
> >  the staging tree.
>
> Yep.
>
> > 2. It will allow the backend developers to always develop against TOT.
> >
> >  Developing against TOT is the recommended development procedure for
> >  anyone working on LLVM, and this is regularly reiterated on the
> >  mailing list.  If the new backend is included in the main tree,
> >  the backend developers will have no choice but to work against TOT.
>
> +1!!!
>
> > 3. It will make it easier for end users and distributions to test and
> >   also make it easier for new contributors.
> >
> >  New backends will be more visible to the public if they are in the
> >  main tree.  This will mean more users, an expanded testing base, and
> >  more potential developers which will lead to a higher quality
backend.
>
> I'd also add:
>
> 4. Infrastructure enhancements that are only required for an experimental
> backend can be implemented in the main tree, even if that infrastructure
> isn't needed by other targets.  Of course, these changes need to meet
the
> standard quality bar for general code in the compiler.
>
> In the past, we've had some general infrastructure features get denied
> because they didn't relate to any targets in-tree.
>
This is definitely a great point.  Part of the problem we had with the
NVPTX back-end was that we needed some LLVM core changes, but only the
NVPTX back-end would use these changes.  It was a chicken-and-egg problem;
this would solve that problem.

>
> > ++ What is needed from the LLVM developers:
> >
> >  In order to make this staging program successful, the LLVM project
> >  will need to appoint a "code owner" for the staging
process, who
> >  backend developers can contact when they are interested in getting
> >  the backend included in the main tree.  An LLVM developer will also
> >  be needed to act as a steward for the new backend and help guide
> >  the backend developers through the process.
>
> I think we also need to define the minimum quality bar for a backend to be
> included.
>
This could be the trickiest part overall. In this sense, X86 and ARM are
easy because reference assemblers/hardware/simulators are so easily
available.  These back-ends can also be verified through the LLVM test
suite.  My understanding of Tom's R600 back-end is that it only works in
conjunction with Mesa/Gallium, so verification on real hardware cannot
easily be done (please correct me if I am wrong here).

On one hand, we could establish a minimum set of LLVM IR or SDAG that must
be handled by the back-end and verified through unit test cases.  Having
100% LLVM IR/SDAG coverage is not reasonable simply because some concepts
(e.g. exception handling, all intrinsics, etc.) are not present in the
target hardware, VM, etc..

My feeling is that this should remain somewhat generic and be established
on a back-end by back-end basis, based on the target hardware and what can
feasibly be supported.

>
> Also, if we do this, can we demote CellSPU? :)
>
> -Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>


-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120723/8fc2b205/attachment.html>

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes:
> FWIW, I really like this idea or concept, but we have to be careful
> for it to be done right. This is also more general than just backends:
> experimental optimizers and runtime libraries can also benefit from
> something like this.
Absolutely.  In particular:
> In the past, we've had some general infrastructure features get denied
> because they didn't relate to any targets in-tree.
The same has been true for some proposed analysis and optimization
passes.  I would love to see a way to work on "experimental" passes
against trunk with the ability to move infrastructure pieces to
production state while still working on the pass.

Right now, there's a chicken-and-egg problem.  Can I get infrastructure
changes through review if the pass that uses them isn't ready and
therefore isn't visible to other developers?  Given the desire for
incremental development, how do I get a pass approved without the needed
infrastructure already in place?

A staging process for passes analogous to the proposal for backends
would solve that problem, I think.  It also gives the pass writers a
more concrete idea of the requirements to move into production.

                            -Dave

Hi,

I would like to try to keep the staging area discussion going.  There
seems to be a general consensus that a staging area for backends and also
new features would be acceptable for the LLVM project.  What actions
are required to make the staging area a reality?  Is more discussion
needed? Is anyone willing to volunteer to be the "Code Owner" for the
staging area, to help move the process forward?

Thanks,
Tom

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:51:03AM -0400, Tom Stellard
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to follow up on the recent discussion on the mailing list
> about requirements for new backends[1] by submitting the following
> proposal for a staging area for new LLVM backends.  This proposal
> incorporates ideas from Owen, Chandler, and others who chimed in on
> the original thread, and I hope the LLVM developers will be able to
> come to a consensus on this proposal or a modified version, so the
> project is able to accept new backends.
> 
> The goals of the staging area will be:
>   1. Facilitate communication between the LLVM project and backend
>      developers
>   2. Ensure that new backends meet LLVM standards
>   3. Give the backend more exposure to users and prospective developers
> 
> ++ Staging Area:
> 
> Similar to the Linux kernel, the staging area for new backends will
> be in the main LLVM tree, with building of the backend being disabled
> by default.  There will also be a TODO file in the backend's root
> directory, that contains a list of improvements that are required to
> promote the backend out of the staging area.  The backend will be
> assigned a steward who's role will be to guide the backend through
> the staging process and help solicit feedback from other developers.
> 
> There are several advantages to having the staging area be in the main
> tree as opposed to a separate branch:
> 
> 1. It will be easier for LLVM developers to become familiar with the
>    new backend and identify areas for improvement.
> 
>   If the new backend is in the main tree, LLVM developers are more
>   likely to encounter it in their day to day development.  Imagine a
>   scenario where a developer makes a change to LLVM core that impacts
>   several backends.  The developer may grep the code looking for
>   backends that make use of the feature that they have added or
>   changed.  If the new backend is in tree and uses that feature,
>   the developer will see the code and might take a few moments to
>   read through.  While doing this the developer may notice an area for
>   improvement for the backend and can update the backends's TODO file.
>   The end result of this is that the LLVM developer has been able to
>   provide some feedback with a minimal time commitment on their part.
> 
>   If the backend were staged in a separate tree, this kind of
>   simple review would not be possible, and I would be concerned that
>   developers would be too busy to ever get around to checking out
>   the staging tree.
> 
> 2. It will allow the backend developers to always develop against TOT.
> 
>   Developing against TOT is the recommended development procedure for
>   anyone working on LLVM, and this is regularly reiterated on the
>   mailing list.  If the new backend is included in the main tree,
>   the backend developers will have no choice but to work against TOT.
> 
> 3. It will make it easier for end users and distributions to test and
>    also make it easier for new contributors.
> 
>   New backends will be more visible to the public if they are in the
>   main tree.  This will mean more users, an expanded testing base, and
>   more potential developers which will lead to a higher quality backend.
> 
> 
> ++ Promotion/Demotion from staging area:
> 
>   After a period of time, or when the tasks in the TODO file have been
>   completed, the backend developers or the steward can initiate the
>   review process.  The review process will be conducted by either the
>   steward, a committee, or some select developers, who will decide
>   (maybe by vote in the case of a committee) whether the backend
>   should be:
> 
>   - Promoted = Build of backend will be enabled by default.
>   - Extended = Backend remains in the staging area.
>   - Demoted  = Removed from the main tree
>     (I can't really think of any disadvantages to having a backend be
>     in the main tree as long as its not being built by default, so maybe
>     demotion would be reserved for cases of long term absence
>     of maintainership)
> 
>   The Promoted/Extended/Demoted decision will be made using the
>   following criteria (These won't necessarily all be absolutely
>   required, they merely serve as a way for a backend's progress to
>   be measured) :
> 
>   - Progress towards completion of TODO tasks
>   - Active maintainership
>   - Use of incremental development techniques
>   - Adherence to LLVM coding style
>   - Usage of modern LLVM features
>   - Quality and quantity of regression tests
>   - Availability of buildbots
>   - Size of user base
>   - Other criteria deemed important by LLVM developers
> 
>   - Contributions to core LLVM
>     In the previous mailing list discussions there were differing
>     opinions of how important contributing to the core LLVM code is
>     for having a backend accepted.  It seems like a good middle ground
>     would be that backends should be free of code that works around
>     bugs or deficiency in core LLVM and instead fix the problem in
>     shared code, and also should make an effort to push optimization
>     passes that may be useful to other targets into the shared parts
>     of the code.
> 
> 
> ++ What is needed from the LLVM developers:
> 
>   In order to make this staging program successful, the LLVM project
>   will need to appoint a "code owner" for the staging process,
who
>   backend developers can contact when they are interested in getting
>   the backend included in the main tree.  An LLVM developer will also
>   be needed to act as a steward for the new backend and help guide
>   the backend developers through the process.
> 
> Looking forward to comments on this proposal.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom Stellard
> 
> [1]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120716/146560.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

On 07/27/2012 01:01 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to try to keep the staging area discussion going.  There
> seems to be a general consensus that a staging area for backends and also
> new features would be acceptable for the LLVM project.  What actions
> are required to make the staging area a reality?  Is more discussion
> needed? Is anyone willing to volunteer to be the "Code Owner" for
the
> staging area, to help move the process forward?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
The main issue I see is defining exactly how to incorporate the
"staged"
back-ends into the build system.  I see a couple of possibilities.

 1. Fully-integrate the "staged" back-ends into the CMake/Autotools
    build systems, but exclude them from the "all" pseudo-target.
 2. Maintain a separate list of "staged" back-ends, and create an
    additional option that must be set in order to build them (with an
    appropriate warning).

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?

Beyond that, I don't believe we have established the criteria for 
back-end promotion.  Then again, it may make more sense to use R600 as a 
guinea pig and address issues as they come up.
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:51:03AM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to follow up on the recent discussion on the mailing list
>> about requirements for new backends[1] by submitting the following
>> proposal for a staging area for new LLVM backends.  This proposal
>> incorporates ideas from Owen, Chandler, and others who chimed in on
>> the original thread, and I hope the LLVM developers will be able to
>> come to a consensus on this proposal or a modified version, so the
>> project is able to accept new backends.
>>
>> The goals of the staging area will be:
>>    1. Facilitate communication between the LLVM project and backend
>>       developers
>>    2. Ensure that new backends meet LLVM standards
>>    3. Give the backend more exposure to users and prospective
developers
>>
>> ++ Staging Area:
>>
>> Similar to the Linux kernel, the staging area for new backends will
>> be in the main LLVM tree, with building of the backend being disabled
>> by default.  There will also be a TODO file in the backend's root
>> directory, that contains a list of improvements that are required to
>> promote the backend out of the staging area.  The backend will be
>> assigned a steward who's role will be to guide the backend through
>> the staging process and help solicit feedback from other developers.
>>
>> There are several advantages to having the staging area be in the main
>> tree as opposed to a separate branch:
>>
>> 1. It will be easier for LLVM developers to become familiar with the
>>     new backend and identify areas for improvement.
>>
>>    If the new backend is in the main tree, LLVM developers are more
>>    likely to encounter it in their day to day development.  Imagine a
>>    scenario where a developer makes a change to LLVM core that impacts
>>    several backends.  The developer may grep the code looking for
>>    backends that make use of the feature that they have added or
>>    changed.  If the new backend is in tree and uses that feature,
>>    the developer will see the code and might take a few moments to
>>    read through.  While doing this the developer may notice an area for
>>    improvement for the backend and can update the backends's TODO
file.
>>    The end result of this is that the LLVM developer has been able to
>>    provide some feedback with a minimal time commitment on their part.
>>
>>    If the backend were staged in a separate tree, this kind of
>>    simple review would not be possible, and I would be concerned that
>>    developers would be too busy to ever get around to checking out
>>    the staging tree.
>>
>> 2. It will allow the backend developers to always develop against TOT.
>>
>>    Developing against TOT is the recommended development procedure for
>>    anyone working on LLVM, and this is regularly reiterated on the
>>    mailing list.  If the new backend is included in the main tree,
>>    the backend developers will have no choice but to work against TOT.
>>
>> 3. It will make it easier for end users and distributions to test and
>>     also make it easier for new contributors.
>>
>>    New backends will be more visible to the public if they are in the
>>    main tree.  This will mean more users, an expanded testing base, and
>>    more potential developers which will lead to a higher quality
backend.
>>
>>
>> ++ Promotion/Demotion from staging area:
>>
>>    After a period of time, or when the tasks in the TODO file have been
>>    completed, the backend developers or the steward can initiate the
>>    review process.  The review process will be conducted by either the
>>    steward, a committee, or some select developers, who will decide
>>    (maybe by vote in the case of a committee) whether the backend
>>    should be:
>>
>>    - Promoted = Build of backend will be enabled by default.
>>    - Extended = Backend remains in the staging area.
>>    - Demoted  = Removed from the main tree
>>      (I can't really think of any disadvantages to having a backend
be
>>      in the main tree as long as its not being built by default, so
maybe
>>      demotion would be reserved for cases of long term absence
>>      of maintainership)
>>
>>    The Promoted/Extended/Demoted decision will be made using the
>>    following criteria (These won't necessarily all be absolutely
>>    required, they merely serve as a way for a backend's progress to
>>    be measured) :
>>
>>    - Progress towards completion of TODO tasks
>>    - Active maintainership
>>    - Use of incremental development techniques
>>    - Adherence to LLVM coding style
>>    - Usage of modern LLVM features
>>    - Quality and quantity of regression tests
>>    - Availability of buildbots
>>    - Size of user base
>>    - Other criteria deemed important by LLVM developers
>>
>>    - Contributions to core LLVM
>>      In the previous mailing list discussions there were differing
>>      opinions of how important contributing to the core LLVM code is
>>      for having a backend accepted.  It seems like a good middle ground
>>      would be that backends should be free of code that works around
>>      bugs or deficiency in core LLVM and instead fix the problem in
>>      shared code, and also should make an effort to push optimization
>>      passes that may be useful to other targets into the shared parts
>>      of the code.
>>
>>
>> ++ What is needed from the LLVM developers:
>>
>>    In order to make this staging program successful, the LLVM project
>>    will need to appoint a "code owner" for the staging
process, who
>>    backend developers can contact when they are interested in getting
>>    the backend included in the main tree.  An LLVM developer will also
>>    be needed to act as a steward for the new backend and help guide
>>    the backend developers through the process.
>>
>> Looking forward to comments on this proposal.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom Stellard
>>
>> [1]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120716/146560.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-- 
Thanks,

Justin Holewinski

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120727/e24f5cfc/attachment.html>

Hi,

Now that --enable-experimental-targets build flags have been added to
the build systems.  What needs to be done in order to get the R600
backend added as an experimental target?  I've posted an updated
version of the backend to llvm-commits[1], that addresses many of the
criticisms of the backend, but I haven't received any feedback, and I
feel like the submission process has stalled.  It seems like the
problem might be that there is not really an established process for
adding an experimental target to the tree.  So, I'd like to try to
re-open this discussion, what steps need to be taken to add an
experimental target to the tree?

-Tom

[1]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120827/149491.html

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at
amd.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to follow up on the recent discussion on the mailing list
> about requirements for new backends[1] by submitting the following
> proposal for a staging area for new LLVM backends.  This proposal
> incorporates ideas from Owen, Chandler, and others who chimed in on
> the original thread, and I hope the LLVM developers will be able to
> come to a consensus on this proposal or a modified version, so the
> project is able to accept new backends.
>
> The goals of the staging area will be:
>   1. Facilitate communication between the LLVM project and backend
>      developers
>   2. Ensure that new backends meet LLVM standards
>   3. Give the backend more exposure to users and prospective developers
>
> ++ Staging Area:
>
> Similar to the Linux kernel, the staging area for new backends will
> be in the main LLVM tree, with building of the backend being disabled
> by default.  There will also be a TODO file in the backend's root
> directory, that contains a list of improvements that are required to
> promote the backend out of the staging area.  The backend will be
> assigned a steward who's role will be to guide the backend through
> the staging process and help solicit feedback from other developers.
>
> There are several advantages to having the staging area be in the main
> tree as opposed to a separate branch:
>
> 1. It will be easier for LLVM developers to become familiar with the
>    new backend and identify areas for improvement.
>
>   If the new backend is in the main tree, LLVM developers are more
>   likely to encounter it in their day to day development.  Imagine a
>   scenario where a developer makes a change to LLVM core that impacts
>   several backends.  The developer may grep the code looking for
>   backends that make use of the feature that they have added or
>   changed.  If the new backend is in tree and uses that feature,
>   the developer will see the code and might take a few moments to
>   read through.  While doing this the developer may notice an area for
>   improvement for the backend and can update the backends's TODO file.
>   The end result of this is that the LLVM developer has been able to
>   provide some feedback with a minimal time commitment on their part.
>
>   If the backend were staged in a separate tree, this kind of
>   simple review would not be possible, and I would be concerned that
>   developers would be too busy to ever get around to checking out
>   the staging tree.
>
> 2. It will allow the backend developers to always develop against TOT.
>
>   Developing against TOT is the recommended development procedure for
>   anyone working on LLVM, and this is regularly reiterated on the
>   mailing list.  If the new backend is included in the main tree,
>   the backend developers will have no choice but to work against TOT.
>
> 3. It will make it easier for end users and distributions to test and
>    also make it easier for new contributors.
>
>   New backends will be more visible to the public if they are in the
>   main tree.  This will mean more users, an expanded testing base, and
>   more potential developers which will lead to a higher quality backend.
>
>
> ++ Promotion/Demotion from staging area:
>
>   After a period of time, or when the tasks in the TODO file have been
>   completed, the backend developers or the steward can initiate the
>   review process.  The review process will be conducted by either the
>   steward, a committee, or some select developers, who will decide
>   (maybe by vote in the case of a committee) whether the backend
>   should be:
>
>   - Promoted = Build of backend will be enabled by default.
>   - Extended = Backend remains in the staging area.
>   - Demoted  = Removed from the main tree
>     (I can't really think of any disadvantages to having a backend be
>     in the main tree as long as its not being built by default, so maybe
>     demotion would be reserved for cases of long term absence
>     of maintainership)
>
>   The Promoted/Extended/Demoted decision will be made using the
>   following criteria (These won't necessarily all be absolutely
>   required, they merely serve as a way for a backend's progress to
>   be measured) :
>
>   - Progress towards completion of TODO tasks
>   - Active maintainership
>   - Use of incremental development techniques
>   - Adherence to LLVM coding style
>   - Usage of modern LLVM features
>   - Quality and quantity of regression tests
>   - Availability of buildbots
>   - Size of user base
>   - Other criteria deemed important by LLVM developers
>
>   - Contributions to core LLVM
>     In the previous mailing list discussions there were differing
>     opinions of how important contributing to the core LLVM code is
>     for having a backend accepted.  It seems like a good middle ground
>     would be that backends should be free of code that works around
>     bugs or deficiency in core LLVM and instead fix the problem in
>     shared code, and also should make an effort to push optimization
>     passes that may be useful to other targets into the shared parts
>     of the code.
>
>
> ++ What is needed from the LLVM developers:
>
>   In order to make this staging program successful, the LLVM project
>   will need to appoint a "code owner" for the staging process,
who
>   backend developers can contact when they are interested in getting
>   the backend included in the main tree.  An LLVM developer will also
>   be needed to act as a steward for the new backend and help guide
>   the backend developers through the process.
>
> Looking forward to comments on this proposal.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom Stellard
>
> [1]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120716/146560.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Dear Tom,

Looks like setting LCOMMDirectiveType in AMDGPUMCAsmInfo.cpp is not
needed anymore? I commented it out, and then LLVM got compiled fine.

- D.

2012/9/6 Tom Stellard <tstellar at gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Now that --enable-experimental-targets build flags have been added to
> the build systems.  What needs to be done in order to get the R600
> backend added as an experimental target?  I've posted an updated
> version of the backend to llvm-commits[1], that addresses many of the
> criticisms of the backend, but I haven't received any feedback, and I
> feel like the submission process has stalled.  It seems like the
> problem might be that there is not really an established process for
> adding an experimental target to the tree.  So, I'd like to try to
> re-open this discussion, what steps need to be taken to add an
> experimental target to the tree?
>
> -Tom
>
> [1]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120827/149491.html
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at
amd.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to follow up on the recent discussion on the mailing list
>> about requirements for new backends[1] by submitting the following
>> proposal for a staging area for new LLVM backends.  This proposal
>> incorporates ideas from Owen, Chandler, and others who chimed in on
>> the original thread, and I hope the LLVM developers will be able to
>> come to a consensus on this proposal or a modified version, so the
>> project is able to accept new backends.
>>
>> The goals of the staging area will be:
>>   1. Facilitate communication between the LLVM project and backend
>>      developers
>>   2. Ensure that new backends meet LLVM standards
>>   3. Give the backend more exposure to users and prospective developers
>>
>> ++ Staging Area:
>>
>> Similar to the Linux kernel, the staging area for new backends will
>> be in the main LLVM tree, with building of the backend being disabled
>> by default.  There will also be a TODO file in the backend's root
>> directory, that contains a list of improvements that are required to
>> promote the backend out of the staging area.  The backend will be
>> assigned a steward who's role will be to guide the backend through
>> the staging process and help solicit feedback from other developers.
>>
>> There are several advantages to having the staging area be in the main
>> tree as opposed to a separate branch:
>>
>> 1. It will be easier for LLVM developers to become familiar with the
>>    new backend and identify areas for improvement.
>>
>>   If the new backend is in the main tree, LLVM developers are more
>>   likely to encounter it in their day to day development.  Imagine a
>>   scenario where a developer makes a change to LLVM core that impacts
>>   several backends.  The developer may grep the code looking for
>>   backends that make use of the feature that they have added or
>>   changed.  If the new backend is in tree and uses that feature,
>>   the developer will see the code and might take a few moments to
>>   read through.  While doing this the developer may notice an area for
>>   improvement for the backend and can update the backends's TODO
file.
>>   The end result of this is that the LLVM developer has been able to
>>   provide some feedback with a minimal time commitment on their part.
>>
>>   If the backend were staged in a separate tree, this kind of
>>   simple review would not be possible, and I would be concerned that
>>   developers would be too busy to ever get around to checking out
>>   the staging tree.
>>
>> 2. It will allow the backend developers to always develop against TOT.
>>
>>   Developing against TOT is the recommended development procedure for
>>   anyone working on LLVM, and this is regularly reiterated on the
>>   mailing list.  If the new backend is included in the main tree,
>>   the backend developers will have no choice but to work against TOT.
>>
>> 3. It will make it easier for end users and distributions to test and
>>    also make it easier for new contributors.
>>
>>   New backends will be more visible to the public if they are in the
>>   main tree.  This will mean more users, an expanded testing base, and
>>   more potential developers which will lead to a higher quality
backend.
>>
>>
>> ++ Promotion/Demotion from staging area:
>>
>>   After a period of time, or when the tasks in the TODO file have been
>>   completed, the backend developers or the steward can initiate the
>>   review process.  The review process will be conducted by either the
>>   steward, a committee, or some select developers, who will decide
>>   (maybe by vote in the case of a committee) whether the backend
>>   should be:
>>
>>   - Promoted = Build of backend will be enabled by default.
>>   - Extended = Backend remains in the staging area.
>>   - Demoted  = Removed from the main tree
>>     (I can't really think of any disadvantages to having a backend
be
>>     in the main tree as long as its not being built by default, so
maybe
>>     demotion would be reserved for cases of long term absence
>>     of maintainership)
>>
>>   The Promoted/Extended/Demoted decision will be made using the
>>   following criteria (These won't necessarily all be absolutely
>>   required, they merely serve as a way for a backend's progress to
>>   be measured) :
>>
>>   - Progress towards completion of TODO tasks
>>   - Active maintainership
>>   - Use of incremental development techniques
>>   - Adherence to LLVM coding style
>>   - Usage of modern LLVM features
>>   - Quality and quantity of regression tests
>>   - Availability of buildbots
>>   - Size of user base
>>   - Other criteria deemed important by LLVM developers
>>
>>   - Contributions to core LLVM
>>     In the previous mailing list discussions there were differing
>>     opinions of how important contributing to the core LLVM code is
>>     for having a backend accepted.  It seems like a good middle ground
>>     would be that backends should be free of code that works around
>>     bugs or deficiency in core LLVM and instead fix the problem in
>>     shared code, and also should make an effort to push optimization
>>     passes that may be useful to other targets into the shared parts
>>     of the code.
>>
>>
>> ++ What is needed from the LLVM developers:
>>
>>   In order to make this staging program successful, the LLVM project
>>   will need to appoint a "code owner" for the staging
process, who
>>   backend developers can contact when they are interested in getting
>>   the backend included in the main tree.  An LLVM developer will also
>>   be needed to act as a steward for the new backend and help guide
>>   the backend developers through the process.
>>
>> Looking forward to comments on this proposal.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom Stellard
>>
>> [1]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120716/146560.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev