[llvm-dev] Is the CppBackend still supported?

James Y Knight via llvm-dev
Wed, 04 May 2016 20:01:13 -0000

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>