Hi Anton, Thanks for the tip. I’ve moved some common code from the patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50784 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50784> https://reviews.llvm.org/D50856 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50856> https://reviews.llvm.org/D50858 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50858> but the backend itself is still quite large. Anything more I can do to simplify reviewing?> On 15 Aug 2018, at 09:33, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > > Hi Artyom, > > I made a very brief run over the patch and indeed it is quite large :) > > Will it be possible to split it to enable better review? For example > I'm seeing you're having some generic codegenerator / TableGen > changes. Will it be possible to separate them out and provide > rationale for them? Going further, probably triple and ELF-related > changes could be also separated out. > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Gmail-m4yers via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hello friends, >> >> A couple years back I’ve started a M68K codegen port of LLVM, and then >> suspended it for the lack of free time. Now I finally got some time and >> willing to continue working on it. To keep up with LLVM changes I'd like to >> merge it upstream. >> >> There is already patch for it: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50314, but then I >> was reminded that adding a new backend is not a small thing. So, at this >> point I require an advice, help or both on how to proceed, and since the >> patch is quite big I am not sure that a single person would willingly spend >> time reviewing it entirely. >> >> Kind regards, >> Artyom >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > > > > -- > With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov > Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180816/82b81602/attachment-0001.html>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:36 PM, Gmail-m4yers via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hi Anton, > > Thanks for the tip. I’ve moved some common code from the patch: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D50784 > https://reviews.llvm.org/D50856 > https://reviews.llvm.org/D50858 > > but the backend itself is still quite large. Anything more I can do to > simplify reviewing?Personal guess - splitting it further, as much as possible. I.e. first the minimal infrastructure changes, (what you have posted, possibly there is more) then the *absolutely* trimmed down, minimal backend, then start adding more and more *small* pieces. It would be time consuming but then the actual review could happen. Roman.> On 15 Aug 2018, at 09:33, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > wrote: > > Hi Artyom, > > I made a very brief run over the patch and indeed it is quite large :) > > Will it be possible to split it to enable better review? For example > I'm seeing you're having some generic codegenerator / TableGen > changes. Will it be possible to separate them out and provide > rationale for them? Going further, probably triple and ELF-related > changes could be also separated out. > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Gmail-m4yers via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello friends, > > A couple years back I’ve started a M68K codegen port of LLVM, and then > suspended it for the lack of free time. Now I finally got some time and > willing to continue working on it. To keep up with LLVM changes I'd like to > merge it upstream. > > There is already patch for it: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50314, but then I > was reminded that adding a new backend is not a small thing. So, at this > point I require an advice, help or both on how to proceed, and since the > patch is quite big I am not sure that a single person would willingly spend > time reviewing it entirely. > > Kind regards, > Artyom > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > > > -- > With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov > Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >
Has there been any progress on this? When last I checked, it appeared that the many attempts at a 68K backend for LLVM were all still just prototypes, so I was really excited to learn of this effort today. I’ll be letting a few other people who still work with 68K know about it too since an LLVM backend has been one of the big missing pieces in retrocomputing communities. (Sure there’s still GCC, but it’s not always a good solution for various reasons. Same with old compilers—lots of modern code just plain won’t work with them, even C code now.) -- Chris