search for: llvm_staging_targets

...though. > > Sounds good to me, I agree that more exposure is best. > > In terms of build system integration, I think it makes sense to do the following: > > Add a ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL or ENABLE_STAGING flag that allows experimental features to be built (default: OFF) > Add an LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS list that contains all of the staging back-ends > Allow LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD to contain a back-end from LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS *only* if ENABLE_STAGING is ON > > This will allow the default configuration to not only skip the staging back-ends, but prohibit them from being built without expl...

On 30 Jul 2012, at 19:18, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:54:21PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: >> Add a ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL or ENABLE_STAGING flag that allows experimental features to be built (default: OFF) >> Add an LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS list that contains all of the staging back-ends >> Allow LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD to contain a back-end from LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS *only* if ENABLE_STAGING is ON > > I've submitted a patch[1] that adds this option. > > [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-...

...release shouldn't include them though. Sounds good to me, I agree that more exposure is best. In terms of build system integration, I think it makes sense to do the following: Add a ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL or ENABLE_STAGING flag that allows experimental features to be built (default: OFF) Add an LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS list that contains all of the staging back-ends Allow LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD to contain a back-end from LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS *only* if ENABLE_STAGING is ON This will allow the default configuration to not only skip the staging back-ends, but prohibit them from being built without explicitly setting...

On Jul 27, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > >> We also need to come up with a plan regarding cutting releases. When >> 3.2 is branched, will all "staged" back-ends be removed? Or will >> they be left in the distribution so interested parties can build >> them? >> > > I can't really think of any disadvantages to keeping staged backends