llvm dev - Sep 2018 - WebAssembly into normal Target?

Hi All,

WebAssembly has been around for a while now, it's still being actively
worked on and used. I think it's long past time we make it a normal target
so that it gets tested on a regular basis. (Most recent random breakage is
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342576 which fails make check with web assembly
enabled).

Any objections? I'll probably do this next week unless someone raises a
strong objection here.

Thanks!

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180919/53958094/attachment.html>

Sounds reasonable to me.

For reference, these are the targets currently marked experimental:
  ARC, AVR, Nios2, RISCV, WebAssembly.

I think RISCV ought to be moved out of the "experimental" list, too.
(cc += asb, for comment)


On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:47 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> WebAssembly has been around for a while now, it's still being actively
> worked on and used. I think it's long past time we make it a normal
target
> so that it gets tested on a regular basis. (Most recent random breakage is
> https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342576 which fails make check with web
> assembly enabled).
>
> Any objections? I'll probably do this next week unless someone raises a
> strong objection here.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -eric
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180919/bc47d745/attachment.html>

I agree on RISC-V being pulled out of experimental and into default as well.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:05 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>
wrote:
> Sounds reasonable to me.
>
> For reference, these are the targets currently marked experimental:
>   ARC, AVR, Nios2, RISCV, WebAssembly.
>
> I think RISCV ought to be moved out of the "experimental" list,
too.
> (cc += asb, for comment)
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:47 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> WebAssembly has been around for a while now, it's still being
actively
>> worked on and used. I think it's long past time we make it a normal
target
>> so that it gets tested on a regular basis. (Most recent random breakage
is
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342576 which fails make check with web
>> assembly enabled).
>>
>> Any objections? I'll probably do this next week unless someone
raises a
>> strong objection here.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -eric
>>
> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180919/00f55c47/attachment.html>

Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
writes:
> Hi All,
>
> WebAssembly has been around for a while now, it's still being actively
> worked on and used. I think it's long past time we make it a normal
target
> so that it gets tested on a regular basis. (Most recent random breakage is
> https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342576 which fails make check with web assembly
> enabled).
If we're at the point where people are asking the committer to fix tests
for the backend, then the backend should definitely be pulled out of
experimental. As is this just leads to needless overhead.
> Any objections? I'll probably do this next week unless someone raises a
> strong objection here.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -eric
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:24 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
wrote:
> Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > WebAssembly has been around for a while now, it's still being
actively
> > worked on and used. I think it's long past time we make it a
normal
> target
> > so that it gets tested on a regular basis. (Most recent random
breakage
> is
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342576 which fails make check with web
> assembly
> > enabled).
>
> If we're at the point where people are asking the committer to fix
tests
> for the backend, then the backend should definitely be pulled out of
> experimental. As is this just leads to needless overhead.
>
>
That was what caused the motivation, but experimental was supposed to be a
short term thing and both of these targets have had ongoing and stable
maintenance for years now.

-eric

> > Any objections? I'll probably do this next week unless someone
raises a
> > strong objection here.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -eric
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20180919/5839c694/attachment.html>

Hi Eric,

We've been waiting until we stabilize various key interfaces, including the
builtin functions, the C ABI, and the .o file format., as we'd like to
avoid having users using packaged versions of LLVM producing C/C++ source
files or .o/.a files that end up being incompatible with newer versions of
LLVM.

To my knowledge, all of the major issues are fixed now, and the only
remaining blocker is that we need to decide what to do here:

https://reviews.llvm.org/D43675 (Rename imported/exported memory symbol to
__linear_memory)

Dan


On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> WebAssembly has been around for a while now, it's still being actively
> worked on and used. I think it's long past time we make it a normal
target
> so that it gets tested on a regular basis. (Most recent random breakage is
> https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342576 which fails make check with web
> assembly enabled).
>
> Any objections? I'll probably do this next week unless someone raises a
> strong objection here.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -eric
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180919/223badbd/attachment-0001.html>

Also this is a good time to discuss buildbots. We're willing to support a
continuous builder that runs WebAssembly-specific stuff if that would be
useful. Currently we have wasm-specific code in clang and lld (but since
clang doesn't conditionally compile target support, that's already being
tested), as well as LLVM proper. My understanding is that all of the bots
on the default waterfall include a subset of the targets, so it would make
sense to add e.g. a clang-wasm-linux or llvm-wasm-linux bot. Assuming
that's true, do folks think it would be best to add something to
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/ or would there be a better idea?

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:59 PM Dan Gohman via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> We've been waiting until we stabilize various key interfaces, including
> the builtin functions, the C ABI, and the .o file format., as we'd like
to
> avoid having users using packaged versions of LLVM producing C/C++ source
> files or .o/.a files that end up being incompatible with newer versions of
> LLVM.
>
> To my knowledge, all of the major issues are fixed now, and the only
> remaining blocker is that we need to decide what to do here:
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D43675 (Rename imported/exported memory symbol
> to __linear_memory)
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> WebAssembly has been around for a while now, it's still being
actively
>> worked on and used. I think it's long past time we make it a normal
target
>> so that it gets tested on a regular basis. (Most recent random breakage
is
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342576 which fails make check with web
>> assembly enabled).
>>
>> Any objections? I'll probably do this next week unless someone
raises a
>> strong objection here.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -eric
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180919/929294a0/attachment.html>

+1 to WebAssembly

For RISCV, I'd prefer to see a proposal from Alex, but I could believe 
we're ready.


On 09/19/2018 03:05 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Sounds reasonable to me.
>
> For reference, these are the targets currently marked experimental:
>   ARC, AVR, Nios2, RISCV, WebAssembly.
>
> I think RISCV ought to be moved out of the "experimental" list,
too.
> (cc += asb, for comment)
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:47 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev 
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>     WebAssembly has been around for a while now, it's still being
>     actively worked on and used. I think it's long past time we make
>     it a normal target so that it gets tested on a regular basis.
>     (Most recent random breakage is
>     https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342576 which fails make check with web
>     assembly enabled).
>
>     Any objections? I'll probably do this next week unless someone
>     raises a strong objection here.
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     -eric
>     _______________________________________________
>     LLVM Developers mailing list
>     llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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/20180919/97e09386/attachment.html>

Hi Dan,

Sure. That said I think people are just doing it anyhow :)

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:59 PM Dan Gohman <sunfish at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> We've been waiting until we stabilize various key interfaces, including
> the builtin functions, the C ABI, and the .o file format., as we'd like
to
> avoid having users using packaged versions of LLVM producing C/C++ source
> files or .o/.a files that end up being incompatible with newer versions of
> LLVM.
>
> To my knowledge, all of the major issues are fixed now, and the only
> remaining blocker is that we need to decide what to do here:
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D43675 (Rename imported/exported memory symbol
> to __linear_memory)
>
>
On the bright side we just had a release so you'll have 6 mos to get that
ironed out? :)

Anyhow, can't tell if this is an objection on your part or not?

-eric

> Dan
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> WebAssembly has been around for a while now, it's still being
actively
>> worked on and used. I think it's long past time we make it a normal
target
>> so that it gets tested on a regular basis. (Most recent random breakage
is
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342576 which fails make check with web
>> assembly enabled).
>>
>> Any objections? I'll probably do this next week unless someone
raises a
>> strong objection here.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -eric
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180919/1d862cbc/attachment.html>

RISC-V has a lot of commits going in recently and the quality is improving
rapidly. I think that for sure it should become a normal target before the
next release. At the moment it's not quite ready for production use (again
that should be in the next few months), but I guess that's a different
question.

So maybe switching it just after the 7.0 release is exactly the right thing
to do, to help make sure everything will be ready for the next release.


On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:05 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Sounds reasonable to me.
>
> For reference, these are the targets currently marked experimental:
>   ARC, AVR, Nios2, RISCV, WebAssembly.
>
> I think RISCV ought to be moved out of the "experimental" list,
too.
> (cc += asb, for comment)
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:47 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> WebAssembly has been around for a while now, it's still being
actively
>> worked on and used. I think it's long past time we make it a normal
target
>> so that it gets tested on a regular basis. (Most recent random breakage
is
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342576 which fails make check with web
>> assembly enabled).
>>
>> Any objections? I'll probably do this next week unless someone
raises a
>> strong objection here.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -eric
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180919/9f7c4f59/attachment.html>

On 19 September 2018 at 23:05, James Y Knight via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Sounds reasonable to me.
>
> For reference, these are the targets currently marked experimental:
>   ARC, AVR, Nios2, RISCV, WebAssembly.
>
> I think RISCV ought to be moved out of the "experimental" list,
too.
> (cc += asb, for comment)
I would like to promote it from "experimental" during the 8.0 cycle. I
intend to propose this move between now on the LLVM Dev Meeting.

As to the original topic of this thread. WebAssembly definitely seems
mature enough to promote from experimental. In my view, any backend
that is "stable" at the time of an official release has a certain
obligation with regards to stability of interfaces (command line
interface, object format, assembly, etc etc). It looks like Dan Gohman
answered my question there
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-September/126261.html>
and things are now fairly fixed.

Best,

Alex