On 08/17/2016 09:33 AM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:> > I haven't actually been following the story of the AVR backend at all, > but afaik the current status is that there's a partially completed AVR > backend in trunk that's been under construction for a year or so, and > a functional backend in another repository, which people actually use. > However that situation came to pass, it seems a very unfortunate state > to be in, and it would be sad if this rewrite of the RISC-V backend > ended up with the upstream repository having the same mostly-unusable > status for RISC-V.The problem is nobody is reviewing it. I've reviewed a number of patches, but the current set of ones up for review are for MC areas I'm not the best person for -Matt
That's extremely unfortunate. Our review systems make it way too easy for reviews to fall through the cracks and get lost forever. On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Matt Arsenault <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com> wrote:> On 08/17/2016 09:33 AM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > >> >> I haven't actually been following the story of the AVR backend at all, >> but afaik the current status is that there's a partially completed AVR >> backend in trunk that's been under construction for a year or so, and a >> functional backend in another repository, which people actually use. >> However that situation came to pass, it seems a very unfortunate state to >> be in, and it would be sad if this rewrite of the RISC-V backend ended up >> with the upstream repository having the same mostly-unusable status for >> RISC-V. >> > > The problem is nobody is reviewing it. I've reviewed a number of patches, > but the current set of ones up for review are for MC areas I'm not the best > person for > > -Matt > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160817/7de8ef76/attachment.html>
Aren’t code owner supposed to help find reviewers? From the developer policy: "The sole responsibility of a code owner is to ensure that a commit to their area of the code is appropriately reviewed, either by themself or by someone else.“ (OK it mentions “commit” and not “patch”, but that would seem like a pedantic distinction to me) — Mehdi> On Aug 17, 2016, at 12:14 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > That's extremely unfortunate. Our review systems make it way too easy for reviews to fall through the cracks and get lost forever. > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Matt Arsenault <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com <mailto:Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com>> wrote: > On 08/17/2016 09:33 AM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > > I haven't actually been following the story of the AVR backend at all, but afaik the current status is that there's a partially completed AVR backend in trunk that's been under construction for a year or so, and a functional backend in another repository, which people actually use. However that situation came to pass, it seems a very unfortunate state to be in, and it would be sad if this rewrite of the RISC-V backend ended up with the upstream repository having the same mostly-unusable status for RISC-V. > > The problem is nobody is reviewing it. I've reviewed a number of patches, but the current set of ones up for review are for MC areas I'm not the best person for > > -Matt > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160817/27338047/attachment.html>