similar to: [LLVMdev] LLC ARM Backend maintainer

I am very interested in seeing a qualification plan for ARM given that it is a widely used target with several combinations of options/modes to be tested. I & my team use ARM hardware for running tests and we run all test LLVM test suite tests as part of qualification process. I had started a similar conversation in llvm-commits, but this is probably the right forum. It will save everyone a

Hi, It goes without saying that I +1 this. Cheers, James -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Raja Venkateswaran Sent: 11 October 2011 17:46 To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLC ARM Backend maintainer I am very interested in seeing a qualification plan for ARM given that it is a widely used

No. Note the qualifying phrase "for releases" on Tanya's statement. If, during release testing, a regression is found on ARM compared to 2.9 results, it is not required by process to be considered a release blocker. That does not mean features can or should be enabled which knowingly break ARM. That's an entirely different situation. -Jim On Oct 8, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Rotem,

Hi Raja, I'm open to suggestions. Our current release qualification is to bootstrap the compiler (similar to how GCC does their bootstrapping), run the test suites, and verify that there are no regressions. Improving the test suite is always welcome. In addition, we send out pre-release tarballs and have people in the community build and test their programs with it. This is not a perfect

Hi Tanya, The new type-legalization mode (-promote-elements) which enables vector-select in LLVM (and a nice perf boost for several workloads), is currently disabled because of a _single_ bug in the ARM codegen which makes a few tests fail. If ARM is not a supported target, can I mark these tests as 'XFAIL' and enable vector-select support in LLVM ? Thanks, Nadav -----Original

On Oct 7, 2011, at 1:07 AM, Seb wrote: > Hi all, > > To answer Eli question, I wanted to know who is actively working on ARM because I submitted some bug report (#11029, #9905) and don't know if someone is working on them, if/when the will be fixed. Maybe I just need to better understand LLVM release process, I've seen a mail in this list about it. Bugs get fixed if there are

Hi all, To answer Eli question, I wanted to know who is actively working on ARM because I submitted some bug report (#11029, #9905) and don't know if someone is working on them, if/when the will be fixed. Maybe I just need to better understand LLVM release process, I've seen a mail in this list about it. -- Seb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

I see, so perhaps the LLVM ARM Backend is in need of a method of organizing volunteer qualifiers, as releases near? Has this generally been organized via this mailing list? Joe Joe Abbey Software Architect Arxan Technologies, Inc. 1305 Cumberland Ave, Ste 215 West Lafayette, IN 47906 W: 765-889-4756 x2 C: 765-464-9893 jabbey at arxan.com<mailto:jabbey at arxan.com>

On Oct 13, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Raja Venkateswaran wrote: > I think we need a group of maintainers rather than a single maintainer given the spectrum of ARM targets/ISAs/platforms required to support and the amount of people/system resources required. I & my team plan to actively participate in the bug-fixing process during the release cycle. If we can divide the bugs among the maintainers

I'm the code owner of LLVM codegen and targets. I'm also the one of main developers on the original ARM target. That means, I would make the decisions on major development on ARM target if there are decisions to be made. But my role is very different from what people are looking for in this thread. To properly qualify a target like ARM which are supported on many different CPUs and

I think we need a group of maintainers rather than a single maintainer given the spectrum of ARM targets/ISAs/platforms required to support and the amount of people/system resources required. I & my team plan to actively participate in the bug-fixing process during the release cycle. If we can divide the bugs among the maintainers and establish a requirement that all open ARM bugs must be

Evan, > I'm the code owner of LLVM codegen and targets. I'm also the one of main developers on the original ARM target. That means, I would make the decisions on major development on ARM target if there are decisions to be made. > > But my role is very different from what people are looking for in this thread. To properly qualify a target like ARM which are supported on many

Hi Anton, I do apologise - I was under the impression that you were. Re-reading http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#owners, I see you're actually down for EH, debug info and Windows. Sorry about that! J ________________________________________ From: Anton Korobeynikov [anton at korobeynikov.info] Sent: 05 October 2011 20:46 To: James Molloy Cc: Seb; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re:

> Maybe we could have a BoF session during the conference on the 18^th of November > to come up with a basic set of release criteria for ARM targets? I had submitted a BoF proposal to discuss correctness testing and performance tracking processes for LLVM. While the agenda for the BoF is more general than just ARM, we could discuss the release criteria for ARM targets as part of that

Hi James, > Anton Korobenikov is the designated "maintainer", I really-really don't know who said this at first. I'm definitely *not* a maintainer. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Hi all, I'm new to this list and I would like to know who is involved in llc ARM backend maintenance/evolution. -- Seb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111005/5abc7f0d/attachment.html>

Admittedly we're very interested in becoming ARM backend maintainers as our product heavily relies on LLVM. However, we don't have testing resources to test both our product and LLVM on a host of target boards. We have some chumbys, beagleboards, iPhones, iPod Touches, tables, Android Phones, etc. And most of those are already booked solid with our own regression tests (most of which

Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > Improving the test suite is always welcome. Do we have an idea of what sorts of improvements we'd like? Any codes that we want to add, for example? What would be useful for ARM? > In addition, we send out pre-release tarballs and have people in the > community build and test their programs with it. This is not a perfect >

Hi, Anton Korobenikov is the designated "maintainer", but ARM is one of the most active targets so plenty of people commit to it. We at ARM also commit to the back end. In general any questions you would ask a maintainer you should just post to the list and people will reply. Cheers, James ________________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces

On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:43 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > >> Improving the test suite is always welcome. > > Do we have an idea of what sorts of improvements we'd like? Any codes > that we want to add, for example? What would be useful for ARM? > >> In addition, we send out pre-release tarballs and have