The MBlaze backend: can we remove it?

The MBlaze backend seems to be essentially unmaintained since 2011. The maintainer (Wesley Peck who is BCC’ed) seems to have vanished, and in fact all emails to him are bouncing.

Awesome, happy to wait while you investigate. Thanks for tracking it down.

There is even qemu support for microblaze.

I think it's excessive to remove a port so easily.

Once you announce that you want to remove it, you should wait at least a year.

It may have to wait for funding to be resurrected.

gcc had ports that nobody used for 10 years before they finally deleted them.

Reed

       I propose to remove the MBlaze backend on Friday if none step
       forward as a maintainer. Currently, folks are having to keep it
       up to date when changing shared parts of the backend with no help.

I fully support removing it.

There is even qemu support for microblaze.
I think it's excessive to remove a port so easily.

That's not how we work. Unless there is *at least* an active maintainer, a port should be removed. The architecture being possibly relevant is not sufficient to keep it alive.

The LLVM MBlaze backend, AFAIK, has never even had an active user base.

It may have to wait for funding to be resurrected.

Even more reason for us to remove it. Upon possible resurrection, the code can be retrieved from SVN.

Once you announce that you want to remove it, you should wait at least a year.
gcc had ports that nobody used for 10 years before they finally deleted them.

Working like GCC has never been a goal of the LLVM community, for good reason :slight_smile:

-Chris

+1 for general practice.

If you don't have enough developers to maintain it, then I guess you have
no good options. The gnu tool chain supports it, so it wouldn't be the end
of the world. I'd wait as long as possible, giving interested corporations a
reasonable chance to respond and hire someone. Not sure what a reasonable
time would be under the stated circumstances.

enjoy,
Karen