This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Proposal for merging scalar-storage-order branch into mainline


On 06/26/2015 01:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
On 06/09/2015 10:20 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:

Because some folks don't want to audit their code to where to add
byteswaps.
I am serious people have legacy big-endian code they want to run little
endian. There is a reason this is around in the first place. Developers
are
lazy.


That's a little rough, but essentially correct in our experience.

Agreed on both points.  These legacy codebases can be large and full
auditing may not really be that feasible.

Well - they need a full audit anyway to slap those endian attributes on the
appropriate structures.  We are not, after all, introducing a -fbig-endian
switch.
The cases I'm aware of would *love* a -fbig-endian switch :-)



"Legacy code base" and "new compiler feature" don't mix in my mind.
Assume the legacy platform didn't use GCC (because GCC wasn't a viable option way back when the now legacy platform was state-of-the-art), while the new platform will use GCC and will have an endianness change. In that case features to ease the pain of migration make a goodly amount of sense.

jeff


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]