search for: mteymzq

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "mteymzq".

2012 Jul 17
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] RFC: LLVM incubation, or requirements for committing new backends
...nly backend AMD would like to push into mainline, as our production AMDIL backend is in the pipeline to be added and AMD has announced that the HSA foundations compiler will also be open sourced(which is a third backend from AMD, plus more, see http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTEyMzQ). I would just hate to see these get delayed because of barriers to entry that seem artificial or out of scope of the proposed/required changes. > > So I guess the issue is, what else is required to the backends to make them acceptable for LLVM. My biggest issue with most contributed backen...
2012 Jul 17
5
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] RFC: LLVM incubation, or requirements for committing new backends
...nly backend AMD would like to push into mainline, as our production AMDIL backend is in the pipeline to be added and AMD has announced that the HSA foundations compiler will also be open sourced(which is a third backend from AMD, plus more, see http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTEyMzQ). I would just hate to see these get delayed because of barriers to entry that seem artificial or out of scope of the proposed/required changes. So I guess the issue is, what else is required to the backends to make them acceptable for LLVM. Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmd...
2012 Jul 16
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] RFC: LLVM incubation, or requirements for committing new backends
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:44:25AM -0700, Owen Anderson wrote: > Tom, > > I think it might be productive to fork this thread to discuss making the requirements for upstreaming a new LLVM target more explicit and open. I'd also like to gauge interest in an idea I've discussed privately with a few community members, namely the concept of having a semi-official
2012 Jul 16
3
[LLVMdev] RFC: LLVM incubation, or requirements for committing new backends
Tom, I think it might be productive to fork this thread to discuss making the requirements for upstreaming a new LLVM target more explicit and open. I'd also like to gauge interest in an idea I've discussed privately with a few community members, namely the concept of having a semi-official "incubation" system whereby proposed backends could get a trial run before becoming part