R600/SI: Use source modifiers for f64 fneg

[oota-llvm.git] / docs / DeveloperPolicy.rst

diff --git a/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst b/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
index 0f2136aa2edc1a33221d646dbe3e198596da6b5a..508a04fd2d59f9cc7fbf55b33a5a9abad31fed93 100644 (file)
--- a/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
+++ b/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
@@ -68,11 +68,14 @@ of bugs and enhancements occurring in LLVM.  We really appreciate people who are
 proactive at catching incoming bugs in their components and dealing with them
 promptly.
 
 proactive at catching incoming bugs in their components and dealing with them
 promptly.
 

+Please be aware that all public LLVM mailing lists are public and archived, and
+that notices of confidentiality or non-disclosure cannot be respected.
+

 .. _patch:
 .. _one-off patches:
 
 .. _patch:
 .. _one-off patches:
 

-Making a Patch
---------------
+Making and Submitting a Patch
+-----------------------------

 
 When making a patch for review, the goal is to make it as easy for the reviewer
 to read it as possible.  As such, we recommend that you:
 
 When making a patch for review, the goal is to make it as easy for the reviewer
 to read it as possible.  As such, we recommend that you:


@@ -94,6 +97,12 @@ to read it as possible.  As such, we recommend that you:
    script, please separate out those changes into a separate patch from the rest
    of your changes.
 
    script, please separate out those changes into a separate patch from the rest
    of your changes.
 

+Once your patch is ready, submit it by emailing it to the appropriate project's
+commit mailing list (or commit it directly if applicable). Alternatively, some
+patches get sent to the project's development list or component of the LLVM bug
+tracker, but the commit list is the primary place for reviews and should
+generally be preferred.
+

 When sending a patch to a mailing list, it is a good idea to send it as an
 *attachment* to the message, not embedded into the text of the message.  This
 ensures that your mailer will not mangle the patch when it sends it (e.g. by
 When sending a patch to a mailing list, it is a good idea to send it as an
 *attachment* to the message, not embedded into the text of the message.  This
 ensures that your mailer will not mangle the patch when it sends it (e.g. by


@@ -107,6 +116,10 @@ rather than ``Content-Disposition: attachment``. Apple Mail gamely displays such
 a file inline, making it difficult to work with for reviewers using that
 program.
 
 a file inline, making it difficult to work with for reviewers using that
 program.
 

+When submitting patches, please do not add confidentiality or non-disclosure
+notices to the patches themselves.  These notices conflict with the `LLVM
+License`_ and may result in your contribution being excluded.
+

 .. _code review:
 
 Code Reviews
 .. _code review:
 
 Code Reviews


@@ -118,7 +131,8 @@ software. We generally follow these policies:
 #. All developers are required to have significant changes reviewed before they
    are committed to the repository.
 
 #. All developers are required to have significant changes reviewed before they
    are committed to the repository.
 

-#. Code reviews are conducted by email, usually on the llvm-commits list.
+#. Code reviews are conducted by email on the relevant project's commit mailing
+   list, or alternatively on the project's development list or bug tracker.

 
 #. Code can be reviewed either before it is committed or after.  We expect major
    changes to be reviewed before being committed, but smaller changes (or
 
 #. Code can be reviewed either before it is committed or after.  We expect major
    changes to be reviewed before being committed, but smaller changes (or


@@ -198,13 +212,10 @@ features added.  Some tips for getting your testcase approved:
   directory. The appropriate sub-directory should be selected (see the
   :doc:`Testing Guide <TestingGuide>` for details).
 
   directory. The appropriate sub-directory should be selected (see the
   :doc:`Testing Guide <TestingGuide>` for details).
 

-* Test cases should be written in `LLVM assembly language <LangRef.html>`_
-  unless the feature or regression being tested requires another language
-  (e.g. the bug being fixed or feature being implemented is in the llvm-gcc C++
-  front-end, in which case it must be written in C++).
+* Test cases should be written in :doc:`LLVM assembly language <LangRef>`.

 
 * Test cases, especially for regressions, should be reduced as much as possible,
 
 * Test cases, especially for regressions, should be reduced as much as possible,

-  by `bugpoint <Bugpoint.html>`_ or manually. It is unacceptable to place an
+  by :doc:`bugpoint <Bugpoint>` or manually. It is unacceptable to place an

   entire failing program into ``llvm/test`` as this creates a *time-to-test*
   burden on all developers. Please keep them short.
 
   entire failing program into ``llvm/test`` as this creates a *time-to-test*
   burden on all developers. Please keep them short.
 


@@ -325,7 +336,7 @@ Making a Major Change
 ---------------------
 
 When a developer begins a major new project with the aim of contributing it back
 ---------------------
 
 When a developer begins a major new project with the aim of contributing it back

-to LLVM, s/he should inform the community with an email to the `llvmdev
+to LLVM, they should inform the community with an email to the `llvmdev

 <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>`_ email list, to the extent
 possible. The reason for this is to:
 
 <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>`_ email list, to the extent
 possible. The reason for this is to:
 


@@ -406,15 +417,47 @@ to go about making the change.
 Attribution of Changes
 ----------------------
 
 Attribution of Changes
 ----------------------
 

-We believe in correct attribution of contributions to their contributors.
-However, we do not want the source code to be littered with random attributions
-"this code written by J. Random Hacker" (this is noisy and distracting).  In
-practice, the revision control system keeps a perfect history of who changed
-what, and the CREDITS.txt file describes higher-level contributions.  If you
-commit a patch for someone else, please say "patch contributed by J. Random
-Hacker!" in the commit message.
+When contributors submit a patch to an LLVM project, other developers with
+commit access may commit it for the author once appropriate (based on the
+progression of code review, etc.). When doing so, it is important to retain
+correct attribution of contributions to their contributors. However, we do not
+want the source code to be littered with random attributions "this code written
+by J. Random Hacker" (this is noisy and distracting). In practice, the revision
+control system keeps a perfect history of who changed what, and the CREDITS.txt
+file describes higher-level contributions. If you commit a patch for someone
+else, please say "patch contributed by J. Random Hacker!" in the commit
+message. Overall, please do not add contributor names to the source code.
+
+Also, don't commit patches authored by others unless they have submitted the
+patch to the project or you have been authorized to submit them on their behalf
+(you work together and your company authorized you to contribute the patches,
+etc.). The author should first submit them to the relevant project's commit
+list, development list, or LLVM bug tracker component. If someone sends you
+a patch privately, encourage them to submit it to the appropriate list first.
+
+
+IR Backwards Compatibility
+--------------------------
+
+When the IR format has to be changed, keep in mind that we try to maintain some
+backwards compatibility. The rules are intended as a balance between convenience
+for llvm users and not imposing a big burden on llvm developers:
+
+* The textual format is not backwards compatible. We don't change it too often,
+  but there are no specific promises.
+
+* The bitcode format produced by a X.Y release will be readable by all following
+  X.Z releases and the (X+1).0 release.
+
+* Newer releases can ignore features from older releases, but they cannot
+  miscompile them. For example, if nsw is ever replaced with something else,
+  dropping it would be a valid way to upgrade the IR.
+
+* Debug metadata is special in that it is currently dropped during upgrades.

 
 

-Overall, please do not add contributor names to the source code.
+* Non-debug metadata is defined to be safe to drop, so a valid way to upgrade
+  it is to drop it. That is not very user friendly and a bit more effort is
+  expected, but no promises are made.

 
 .. _copyright-license-patents:
 
 
 .. _copyright-license-patents:
 


@@ -494,12 +537,12 @@ to move code from (e.g.)  libc++ to the LLVM core without concern, but that code
 cannot be moved from the LLVM core to libc++ without the copyright owner's
 permission.
 
 cannot be moved from the LLVM core to libc++ without the copyright owner's
 permission.
 

-Note that the LLVM Project does distribute llvm-gcc and dragonegg, **which are
-GPL.** This means that anything "linked" into llvm-gcc must itself be compatible
+Note that the LLVM Project does distribute dragonegg, **which is
+GPL.** This means that anything "linked" into dragonegg must itself be compatible

 with the GPL, and must be releasable under the terms of the GPL.  This implies
 with the GPL, and must be releasable under the terms of the GPL.  This implies

-that **any code linked into llvm-gcc and distributed to others may be subject to
+that **any code linked into dragonegg and distributed to others may be subject to

 the viral aspects of the GPL** (for example, a proprietary code generator linked
 the viral aspects of the GPL** (for example, a proprietary code generator linked

-into llvm-gcc must be made available under the GPL).  This is not a problem for
+into dragonegg must be made available under the GPL).  This is not a problem for

 code already distributed under a more liberal license (like the UIUC license),
 and GPL-containing subprojects are kept in separate SVN repositories whose
 LICENSE.txt files specifically indicate that they contain GPL code.
 code already distributed under a more liberal license (like the UIUC license),
 and GPL-containing subprojects are kept in separate SVN repositories whose
 LICENSE.txt files specifically indicate that they contain GPL code.