similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: Staging area proposal for new backends

Hi, I would like to try to keep the staging area discussion going. There seems to be a general consensus that a staging area for backends and also new features would be acceptable for the LLVM project. What actions are required to make the staging area a reality? Is more discussion needed? Is anyone willing to volunteer to be the "Code Owner" for the staging area, to help move the

Hi, Now that --enable-experimental-targets build flags have been added to the build systems. What needs to be done in order to get the R600 backend added as an experimental target? I've posted an updated version of the backend to llvm-commits[1], that addresses many of the criticisms of the backend, but I haven't received any feedback, and I feel like the submission process has stalled.

On 07/27/2012 01:01 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to try to keep the staging area discussion going. There > seems to be a general consensus that a staging area for backends and also > new features would be acceptable for the LLVM project. What actions > are required to make the staging area a reality? Is more discussion > needed? Is anyone willing to

Dear Tom, Looks like setting LCOMMDirectiveType in AMDGPUMCAsmInfo.cpp is not needed anymore? I commented it out, and then LLVM got compiled fine. - D. 2012/9/6 Tom Stellard <tstellar at gmail.com>: > Hi, > > Now that --enable-experimental-targets build flags have been added to > the build systems. What needs to be done in order to get the R600 > backend added as an

On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > The goals of the staging area will be: > 1. Facilitate communication between the LLVM project and backend > developers > 2. Ensure that new backends meet LLVM standards > 3. Give the backend more exposure to users and prospective developers FWIW, I really like this idea or concept, but we have to be careful for it to be done

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > > The goals of the staging area will be: > > 1. Facilitate communication between the LLVM project and backend > > developers > > 2. Ensure that new backends meet LLVM standards > > 3. Give the backend more exposure to

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:30:49PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On 07/27/2012 01:01 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I would like to try to keep the staging area discussion going. There > >seems to be a general consensus that a staging area for backends and also > >new features would be acceptable for the LLVM project. What actions > >are required

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:21:57AM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > > > The goals of the staging area will be: > > > 1. Facilitate communication between the LLVM project and backend > > > developers > > >

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

On Jul 27, 2012, at 7:05 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > 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

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:54:21PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Jul 27, 2012, at 7:05 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > 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

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

On Jul 16, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > I am in favor of this. I think having specific criteria and time lines > will be beneficial for both maintainers and reviewers. > > However, instead of having a separate branch, what do you think about > adding the backend to the main tree, but not building it by default. > This would make it

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 01:21:18PM -0700, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > > > I am in favor of this. I think having specific criteria and time lines > > will be beneficial for both maintainers and reviewers. > > > > However, instead of having a separate branch, what do you think

Hi all, I am hereby resigning my code ownership of libclc. I would like to nominate Tom Stellard as the new code owner. Thanks, -- Peter

Moving this thread to llvmdev. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:09:34PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> Time is running short, but this would be great. The best place to start is to begin decomposing the mega-patch into individual pieces that makes sense. Do you have

On 01.11.2012, at 14:44, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Moving this thread to llvmdev. > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:09:34PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >>>> Hi Tom, >>>> >>>> Time is running short, but this would be great. The best place to

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:56:26PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > > On 01.11.2012, at 14:44, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > Moving this thread to llvmdev. > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:09:34PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > >>>> Hi

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 09:59:39AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > I would really like to see the LLVM project start to make official bug fix > > releases (e.g. 3.3.1, 3.3.2, etc.). I think that this would be useful for a > > lot of the users of LLVM, especially projects that use LLVM as a library.

Hi, I would really like to see the LLVM project start to make official bug fix releases (e.g. 3.3.1, 3.3.2, etc.). I think that this would be useful for a lot of the users of LLVM, especially projects that use LLVM as a library. I am willing to help maintain bug fix releases, and I'm wondering if this is something that the LLVM project would officially support with a stable SVN branch and by