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

>>>>> 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.

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... :-)
-- 
  Ronan KERYELL
  Xilinx Research Labs, Dublin, Ireland

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it do all this work if the backend can be so out of date and no one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

+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>