I'm straining to understand O_o how a branch-to-be-pulled for your backend will break SystemZ unless you've been modifying the shared middle end. OP: They ma

I'm straining to understand O_o how a branch-to-be-pulled for your backend will break SystemZ unless you've been modifying the shared middle end. OP: They make it harder to develop because all of a sudden you realize that some standard interface is not implemented on them, and you have regression test failures that you need to work around. I don't think the OP said anywhere that he was exclusively developing an arch backend. If you have then you tell them you're going to reduce your test case and also that you're going to contact the SystemZ and SPARCV8 maintainers. Maybe your branch won't make it into the tree. Maybe it's your fault or maybe it's theirs; if it's theirs they'll WANT to know about it. Maybe it won't make it into the tree for this release but it might for the next after the bug is fixed. Yes - and this all goes back to what the OP complained about - that these are moribund platforms and that keeping them running is an undue burden for devs working on living archs and extending the Clang/LLVM spine. I'm GLAD that they've done the hard work of beating GlobalISel into shape because it makes it a more stable platform for me ...which is why the OP mentioned that it might be an unpopular opinion. The OP is doing work for you, extending Clang/LLVM while keeping it in working order for platforms that shouldn't be supported based on deployments, "beating [it] into shape" for you. Snarky replies like "use the right compiler options, duh" seem mean-spirited.