llvm dev - Jan 2019 - RFC: Removal of Nios2 backend

FWIW, I support this especially as it doesn't build.

If someone wants to revive it, removing it won't actually make that much
harder (if at all) given that they'd need to clean up the build as well.

Are there any other (non-Intel) devs who contributed significantly or might
have specific opinions about this?

Does it make more sense to this before or after the branch?

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:25 PM Craig Topper via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Patches up
>
> Clang: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56690
> LLVM: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56691
>
> ~Craig
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 3:51 PM Craig Topper <craig.topper at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We (Intel) would like to propose removal of the Nios2 backend from the
>> repository.
>>
>> It is currently considered an experimental target. The implementation
is
>> not complete and months went by without anyone noticing it doesn't
build.
>> See https://reviews.llvm.org/D56178
>>
>> Due to internal priority changes, it doesn't look like it will
become
>> more maintained in the near future. So I would like to propose removing
it
>> from the repository.
>>
>> I will put together a patch for review shortly.
>>
>> ~Craig
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190114/54c05214/attachment-0001.html>

As far as I could tell, the only non-Intel contributions were from
mechanical API updates or fixing include paths when files moved to other
libraries for layering.

I'm happy to do it on whatever side of the branch people prefer.

~Craig


On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:36 PM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> FWIW, I support this especially as it doesn't build.
>
> If someone wants to revive it, removing it won't actually make that
much
> harder (if at all) given that they'd need to clean up the build as
well.
>
> Are there any other (non-Intel) devs who contributed significantly or
> might have specific opinions about this?
>
> Does it make more sense to this before or after the branch?
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:25 PM Craig Topper via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Patches up
>>
>> Clang: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56690
>> LLVM: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56691
>>
>> ~Craig
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 3:51 PM Craig Topper <craig.topper at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We (Intel) would like to propose removal of the Nios2 backend from
the
>>> repository.
>>>
>>> It is currently considered an experimental target. The
implementation is
>>> not complete and months went by without anyone noticing it
doesn't build.
>>> See https://reviews.llvm.org/D56178
>>>
>>> Due to internal priority changes, it doesn't look like it will
become
>>> more maintained in the near future. So I would like to propose
removing it
>>> from the repository.
>>>
>>> I will put together a patch for review shortly.
>>>
>>> ~Craig
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190114/1a170f57/attachment.html>

+Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> +tstellar at redhat.com
<tstellar at redhat.com> for release thoughts....

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:03 PM Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
wrote:
> As far as I could tell, the only non-Intel contributions were from
> mechanical API updates or fixing include paths when files moved to other
> libraries for layering.
>
> I'm happy to do it on whatever side of the branch people prefer.
>
> ~Craig
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:36 PM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I support this especially as it doesn't build.
>>
>> If someone wants to revive it, removing it won't actually make that
much
>> harder (if at all) given that they'd need to clean up the build as
well.
>>
>> Are there any other (non-Intel) devs who contributed significantly or
>> might have specific opinions about this?
>>
>> Does it make more sense to this before or after the branch?
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:25 PM Craig Topper via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Patches up
>>>
>>> Clang: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56690
>>> LLVM: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56691
>>>
>>> ~Craig
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 3:51 PM Craig Topper <craig.topper at
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We (Intel) would like to propose removal of the Nios2 backend
from the
>>>> repository.
>>>>
>>>> It is currently considered an experimental target. The
implementation
>>>> is not complete and months went by without anyone noticing it
doesn't
>>>> build. See https://reviews.llvm.org/D56178
>>>>
>>>> Due to internal priority changes, it doesn't look like it
will become
>>>> more maintained in the near future. So I would like to propose
removing it
>>>> from the repository.
>>>>
>>>> I will put together a patch for review shortly.
>>>>
>>>> ~Craig
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20190114/8e3fe2a4/attachment.html>

On 1/14/19 7:35 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:
FWIW, I support this especially as it doesn't build.


+1


If someone wants to revive it, removing it won't actually make that much
harder (if at all) given that they'd need to clean up the build as well.

Are there any other (non-Intel) devs who contributed significantly or might have
specific opinions about this?

Does it make more sense to this before or after the branch?


I think that we should remove non-building code before the branch.

 -Hal


On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:25 PM Craig Topper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Patches up

Clang: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56690
LLVM: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56691

~Craig


On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 3:51 PM Craig Topper <craig.topper at
gmail.com<mailto:craig.topper at gmail.com>> wrote:
We (Intel) would like to propose removal of the Nios2 backend from the
repository.

It is currently considered an experimental target. The implementation is not
complete and months went by without anyone noticing it doesn't build. See
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56178

Due to internal priority changes, it doesn't look like it will become more
maintained in the near future. So I would like to propose removing it from the
repository.

I will put together a patch for review shortly.

~Craig
_______________________________________________
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<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


--
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190115/a39da5cc/attachment-0001.html>

> On Jan 14, 2019, at 8:33 PM, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 1/14/19 7:35 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:
>> FWIW, I support this especially as it doesn't build.
> 
> +1
> 
+1

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190114/818eeb37/attachment.html>