This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PowerPC SPE maintainership (was Re: Obsolete powerpc*-*-*spe*)
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Jenner <andrew at codesourcery dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Olivier Hainque <hainque at adacore dot com>, Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, Arnaud Charlet <charlet at adacore dot com>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 06:12:29 -0500
- Subject: Re: PowerPC SPE maintainership (was Re: Obsolete powerpc*-*-*spe*)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <58A61E7B.email@example.com> <20170216221937.GB21840@gate.crashing.org> <58A63B91.firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAGWvny=aWTzSta=jwZS8HwmWU4riN7ee46CZP8MwS2PcYPC0mw@mail.gmail.com> <452E2837-FC8A-4DA2-A2B9-F58151841F58@adacore.com> <CAGWvnymQjd=k4Hv6PgWW2kuCinQTOQvSRvSEnVRN-C-RnvmKig@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20170428231544.GF19687@gate.crashing.org> <alpine.DEB.email@example.com>
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 10:48:05AM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > We also still have to agree on the target triples for the new port.
> > If you have any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
> It seems fairly obvious that the powerpc-*-eabispe* and
> powerpc*-*-linux*spe* triples should continue to work while being mapped
> to the new CPU port. It's less obvious what triples should be used for
> SPE versions of other SPE-supporting configurations such as
> powerpc-*-eabisim*, powerpc-*-rtems*, powerpc-wrs-vxworks*.
My current patches have powerpc*-*-*spe* for the powerpcspe port.
Maybe it should also allow powerpcspe-*-*? If people are willing
to change the target triple they use.
> Some testcases will be applicable to both ports, some to only one.
Yeah; but we can sort that out later, no change is needed as long as
the new port is essentially a copy of rs6000 :-)
> Maintainers of each port should of course watch the other port for changes
> that should be carried across, even if we believe, as has been stated in
> this discussion, that the parts of the code that would be present in both
> ports are stable and very rarely change.