Re: GCC support for PowerPC VLE

[Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:03 PM, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Maybe it's also possible to refactor some of the powerpc port to make adding
VLE support less invasive or disruptive (disclaimer: I have not looked at the
patches).

Richard.

> Thanks, David