This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC support for PowerPC VLE
- From: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Will <william dot swashbuckler at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Sebastian Huber <sebastian dot huber at embedded-brains dot de>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:03:38 -0400
- Subject: Re: GCC support for PowerPC VLE
- References: <CADoS-hLY38kQi6zJGzwZJTN81hXDeqf0ibUQALYRCQbk5+uD_w at mail dot gmail dot com> <5023D249 dot 9030002 at codesourcery dot com> <loom dot 20130321T095632-653 at post dot gmane dot org>
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Will <william.swashbuckler@gmail.com> wrote:
> James Lemke <jwlemke <at> codesourcery.com> writes:
>
>> I have completed the binutils submission for VLE.
>> I am working on the gcc submission. The test results are looking good
>> now. Patches will be posted very soon.
>
> Do you have any update on the work on VLE-support?
>
> Thanks for any feedback you can provide!
The problem is the changes are very invasive and significantly
complicate the common parts of the rs6000 port. A lot of people may
use applications built for PPC VLE on embedded systems using Freescale
parts, but there are few developers who need to build and use the
compiler. Most, if not all, of those developers will receive a
pre-built SDK.
I am happy to work with Jim to merge some of the VLE patches into GCC
to reduce divergence and simplify maintenance, but merging in all
support is too disruptive to the general powerpc port. I have not
heard a lot of advantage or need for most developers to be able to
build GCC for PPC VLE from the FSF sources, other than a few, vocal
users. Merging in some of the less disruptive pieces and obtaining
patches or an SDK from Freescale does not seem overly burdensome for
the few people who need that support.
Thanks, David