David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2016-May-04 21:48 UTC
[llvm-dev] Is the CppBackend still supported?
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>
Stanislav Manilov via llvm-dev
2016-May-04 22:10 UTC
[llvm-dev] Is the CppBackend still supported?
As in "look at the source of clang" or as in "look at the -S -emit-llvm" output? If you mean the former, then would that be easy for someone who hasn't seen the clang source before? On Wed, May 4, 2016, 22:48 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> 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/a4599aa8/attachment.html>
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2016-May-04 22:12 UTC
[llvm-dev] Is the CppBackend still supported?
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Stanislav Manilov < stanislav.manilov at gmail.com> wrote:> As in "look at the source of clang" or as in "look at the -S -emit-llvm" > output? If you mean the former, then would that be easy for someone who > hasn't seen the clang source before? >Generally the latter - then potentially set some breakpoints & look at the clang source if you're looking for the right APIs. It's not as easy as the CppBackend (if the CppBackend were up to date) but not too bad, I don't think.> > On Wed, May 4, 2016, 22:48 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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/20160504/71ee4fd2/attachment.html>