[libc][docs] codify Policy on Assembler Sources

It would be helpful in future code reviews to document a policy with regards to
where and when Assembler sources are appropriate. That way when reviewers point
out infractions, they can point to this written policy, which may help
contributors understand that it's not the solely personal preferences of
reviewers but rather a previously agreed upon rule by maintainers.

Link: llvm#87837
Link: llvm#88157
Link: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/hand-written-in-assembly-in-libc-setjmp-longjmp/73249/12

Author: nickdesaulniers

libc/docs/dev/code_style.rst

@@ -186,3 +186,32 @@ We expect contributions to be free of warnings from the `minimum supported
 compiler versions`__ (and newer).
 
 .. __: https://libc.llvm.org/compiler_support.html#minimum-supported-versions
+
+Policy on Assembler sources
+===========================
+
+Coding in high level languages such as C++ provides benefits relative to low
+level languages like Assembler, such as:
+
+* Improved safety
+* Instrumentation
+
+  * Code coverage
+  * Profile collection
+* Sanitization
+* Debug info
+
+While its not impossible to have Assembler code that correctly provides all of
+the above, we do not wish to maintain such Assembler sources in llvm-libc.
+
+That said, there a few functions provided by llvm-libc that are more difficult
+to implement or maintain in C++ than Assembler. We do use inline or out-of-line
+Assembler in an intentionally minimal set of places; typically places where the
+stack or individual register state must be manipulated very carefully for
+correctness.
+
+Contributions adding Assembler for performance are not welcome. Contributors
+should strive to stick with C++ for as long as it remains reasonable to do so.
+llvm-libc maintainers reserve the right to reject Assembler contributions that
+could they feel could be better maintained if rewritten in C++, and to revisit
+this policy in the future.