[lowrisc-dev] Re: [sw-dev] RISC-V LLVM status update

Alex Bradbury asb at asbradbury.org
Tue Aug 22 21:27:00 BST 2017


On 22 August 2017 at 20:26, John Leidel <john.leidel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex, as always, this is awesome work.  I perused through your outstanding
> issue list and I believe there are definitely places whereby the community
> can help contribute at this stage in the development.  Regarding community
> involvement, how would you like to proceed?  Would you prefer to funnel the
> patches through lowRISC such that we maintain continuity in the upstream
> patch process (at least until this is fully merged into the upstream tree)?

My thoughts are:
1) Having contributors work directly on upstream LLVM infrastructure
is where we want to end up. It benefits both the RISC-V community and
the LLVM community to do as soon as possible
2) Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good. If there's no reasonable
chance of the majority of the patchset being reviewed and committed in
the near future, we should bite the bullet and collect work downstream
on a temporary basis. This does require ensuring contributors agree to
the LLVM license and developer policy. Doable, but I'd rather skip
this
3) There's no shortage of people interested in this work, and
indicating that interest either on or off list. This status update and
recent milestones seems to be having the desired effect of stoking
that interest, and there does seem to be an uptick in review activity
on the remaining patches. As such, getting the remaining patches
committed in the near future isn't infeasible

Taking in all of the above, I was thinking to see where things are
with the submitted patches by the beginning of next week. If it looks
like that's going to remain a bottleneck, then pooling work downstream
is the pragmatic way to go despite the downsides. If reviewing the
outstanding patches is no longer problem, then of course we can stick
with plan A.

How does that sound?

Alex



More information about the lowrisc-dev mailing list