michaelmaitland wrote: There was a prior discussion about what designs should go in. The initial quote from @asb was:
> it's obvious that commercial designs with active support should go in, and > that some core design I hacked up over a weekend shouldn't but we haven't had > the need to discuss anything in-between that @preames suggested: > we might want to think about deprecation policy so that we can be fairly > liberal in accepting support for new CPUs/microarchs, yet remove them later > if they become less relevant My main concern here is that we'd like to ensure that there is a maintainer for this. Could you provide us some more information on what entity would be the maintainer? It looks like @Wren6991 is the only maintainer of Hazard3. I'm also interested in understanding whether there are any customers or users of this core. I think it would be helpful to raise this at the next LLVM RISC-V syncup. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102452 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
