search for: lanai

Dear LLVM community, We wanted to discuss the possibility of moving the Lanai backend from an experimental status to a regular backend. During the initial upstreaming of the Lanai backend (llvm-dev thread "[RFC] Lanai backend", http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-February/095118.html) it was discussed that we could move out of experimental status after a...

The ISA & encoding is documented in the comments and diagrams of lib/Target/Lanai/LanaiInstrFormats.td. If that makes sense I'll add a link to this tablegen in docs/CompilerWriterInfo.rst. Thanks, Jacques On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Do you have a psABI document? Or an ISA reference? Or an encoding > reference...

..."Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Rafael Espíndola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 7:50:33 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Lanai backend > > On 10 February 2016 at 13:42, Rafael Espíndola > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Is it a good summary of the thread that everyone is OK with Lanai > > being an experimental backend and we can discuss taking it out of > > experimental when there...

...in tree shifts > the maintenance burden from the *contributor* to the *community*. If there > is low value to the community, then this is a "bad deal” for the project as > a whole, since there is only so much attention to go around. This expresses my idea very clearly. The initial Lanai thread had hints that this could be at play, though they seem to be releasing emulators and documents, which to mee it seems like that was just FUD. However, the fact that people did consider it means they care about not being tossed a piece of code to baby sit, and this has *nothing* to do with t...

...t; >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Jacques Pienaar via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >>> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 11:40:21 AM >>> > Subject: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Lanai backend >>> >>> > Hi all, >>> >>> Hi Jacques, >>> >>> > We would like to contribute a new backend for the Lanai processor >>> >>> I suppose I can guess from your e-mail address who "we" are? >>> >&gt...

Hi all, We would like to contribute a new backend for the Lanai processor (derived from the processor described in [1]). Lanai is a simple in-order 32-bit processor with: * 32 32-bit registers, including: * 2 registers with fixed values; * 4 used for program state tracking (PC, SP, FP, RCA); * 2 reserved for explicit usage by user (R10 and R11),...

...lt; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jacques Pienaar via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 11:40:21 AM > > Subject: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Lanai backend > > > Hi all, > > Hi Jacques, > > > We would like to contribute a new backend for the Lanai processor > > I suppose I can guess from your e-mail address who "we" are? > Yep! > > > (derived from the processor described in [1]). > >...

...epting that. And SystemZ is hopefully a good comparison in that is a new and well isolated backend. Ever since it went in I can remember only ever discussing 1 or 2 patches, and the last case pushed me to improving common code (r255902). Is it a good summary of the thread that everyone is OK with Lanai being an experimental backend and we can discuss taking it out of experimental when there is desire for that? Cheers, Rafael

...rg> wrote: > I'm not hung up on the fixed number of months. I don't even think it's the > best idea, but I was expecting people to give their own ideas... :-) > > But saying "as soon as they are ready" may be hard to assess. And writing > it specific for the Lanai back end would not be appropriate. > > I'm open to ideas... Please share! :-) > Well, It's easy to criticize, but much harder to create new ideas... So I specialize in former. :-) I have only two suggestions: 1) Leave the wording as is, and make Lanai an official back-end no earli...

...uld probably have something like it in the docs if we don’t already. Agree with Pete. I’d add (because the community will have to maintain it somehow): - good code quality and documentation - good testing (small tests, documented, with good coverage). — Mehdi > > I have no problem with Lanai in LLVM (non-experimentally) if it meets most of these criteria to some degree. Obviously that doesn’t mean every target in LLVM needs to have detailed microarchitecture documents, but a basic ISA should be publicly available. Personally I also think the ability to at least simulate the code is v...

On 29 July 2016 at 12:16, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> wrote: > 1) Leave the wording as is, and make Lanai an official back-end no earlier > than Sep 28th. I don't want to *have* to do that just because we introduced a policy after the Lanai back-end started the process... And making Lanai official just before the policy goes public would be cheeky. :) > 2) Downgrade the wording from &quot...

...-- > From: "Pete Cooper via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 10:59:58 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Lanai backend > > > Hi Sean > > > I think you’ve summed it up really well here. > > > Personally I don’t think we should accept backends for which there is > no way to run the code. The burden (however small) on the community > to having an in-tree backend they can’...

...experimental? And what is the meaning of experimental anyway? Maybe we should separate the discussion from the actual change. So, if you could comment on the review D22753 about which of the points you'd consider mandatory and which are nice-to-have, that'd probably be easiest. About the Lanai back-end being official, I have no reservations. But I was the only one to say anything, so I'll wait for others to have their say on the review before I put my approval. Just a few unrelated comments below... :) On 25 July 2016 at 19:46, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrot...

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 29 July 2016 at 12:16, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> > wrote: > > 1) Leave the wording as is, and make Lanai an official back-end no > earlier > > than Sep 28th. > > I don't want to *have* to do that just because we introduced a policy > after the Lanai back-end started the process... > > And making Lanai official just before the policy goes public would be > cheeky. :) >...

...t 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Jacques Pienaar via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > We would like to contribute a new backend for the Lanai processor > (derived from the processor described in [1]). > > Hi Jacques, > > We generally have a low bar for accepting new “experimental” backends, but > I think that this is the first proposal to add a target for a hardware that > general LLVM contributors can’t have access...

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 10 February 2016 at 06:44, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> But I also see another option, which someone else mentioned up-thread: >> simply make only the regression tests be supported. Without a regression >> test case that

You've raised an important point here Pete, and while I disagree pretty strongly with it (regardless of whether Lanai makes sense or not), I'm glad that you've surfaced it where we can clearly look at the issue. The idea of "it really should have users outside of just the people who have access to the HW" I think is deeply problematic for the project as a whole. Where does it stop? While I may...

On 7/19/2016 6:12 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > > I don't see why not. LGTM. Same here. -Krzysztof -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

...ally make use of an Alpha-target Clang. So while I suspect there are enough of us around that the "hurt" part could be low to nothing, there's really nobody on the "help" side. And after the Alpha fans die off, well, that's that. I didn't pay enough attention to the Lanai debate to know whether Google has much of an end-user community there. It seems likely the hurt side would not be a problem, even if the current maintainers rotate out for whatever reason then Google seems likely to rotate in somebody else to take their place. That capacity would seem to make it...

...Pete Cooper via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > You've raised an important point here Pete, and while I disagree pretty > strongly with it (regardless of whether Lanai makes sense or not), I'm glad > that you've surfaced it where we can clearly look at the issue. > > The idea of "it really should have users outside of just the people who > have access to the HW" I think is deeply problematic for the project as a > whole. Where doe...