erichkeane wrote: > For reference, the RFC for the LLVM backend was > https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-request-for-upstream-tensilica-xtensa-esp32-backend/65355 > . Given there's an LLVM backend, I don't think we need a separate clang RFC? > Assuming the target doesn't require any exotic frontend features, we'd > inevitably reach the same conclusion as the LLVM backend RFC. > > That said, I am a little concerned that progress on the upstreaming is moving > excessively slowly; it's been over two years since the original RFC. New > backends don't normally take that long... what exactly has been happening?
I wasn't asking for a separate clang RFC, just I wasn't aware of the previous one! As you mentioned, it was significantly in the past, so I'd not heard of it/remembered it, and my quick grepping didn't show the backend. Given the time/progress so far, I wouldn't mind some sort of re-assertion from the community at large that we are a: still interested in this, b: have a dedicated someone willing/able to do the work, which is a criteria for our RFCs https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/118008 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
