Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
2019-Jan-15 02:03 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Removal of Nios2 backend
+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>
I don't really have a preference for doing it before or after the release branch. If the patches are ready, landing them sounds good to me. On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:04 AM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:> > +Hans Wennborg +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
Patches have been committed. r351230(clang) and r351231(llvm) ~Craig On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 2:13 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:> I don't really have a preference for doing it before or after the > release branch. If the patches are ready, landing them sounds good to > me. > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:04 AM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > +Hans Wennborg +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/20190115/5eb66287/attachment.html>