Although contribution always welcome, personally I prefer making the
document as consistent as possible.
I don't know if it's a good idea interleaving different backend
implementation
s
in
one
document.
Anyway, I think you can write a RFC (request for comment)
mail, describing what/where you feel unsatisfied
about current document, giving a draft to show us how you would improve the
document. I think that will make
the discussion more concrete.
We all know the document is out-of-date once it has been written. My
thought is you can give
a general guild line, using existing backend as an example. Consistency is
very subjective,
that's why I think you can write up a draft document, explaining what you
want to improve, let
other has a solid base to give comment and feedback.
I believe that this is a necessary evil. I don’t think that we have a single back end that uses all of the target-agnostic codegen features, or hits all of the important corner cases of back-end development, and so a good document would necessarily cover multiple cases.
That said, I’m not sure that AVR is sufficiently different from SPARC that it makes a good example here.
