search for: unratifi

...feel it's the LLVM community's role to try to police this. I believe code should be committed to LLVM when it is of sufficient quality, when it can be shown to benefit the LLVM user or developer communities, and when there is someone willing to support it. All of these can be true even for unratified standard RISC-V extensions, with a caveat on "support". It may not be appropriate to try to police RISC-V fragmentation, but we also shouldn't needlessly add to it. Shipping compiler support may further encourage hardware with unfinalised specifications, and so we should guard it be...

...t lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I believe code should be committed to LLVM when it is of sufficient > > quality, when it can be shown to benefit the LLVM user or developer > > communities, and when there is someone willing to support it. All of these can > > be true even for unratified standard RISC-V extensions, with a caveat on > > "support”. > > +1 > > > # Proposal > > > > Although we want to discourage downstream reliance on unratified extensions, > > there doesn't seem to be a strong motivation for requiring a custom LLVM bui...