This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Overwhelmed by GCC frustration
- From: Oleg Endo <oleg dot endo at t-online dot de>
- To: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- Cc: Georg-Johann Lay <avr at gjlay dot de>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:22:10 +0900
- Subject: Re: Overwhelmed by GCC frustration
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <597F2FB4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20170731172340.GG13471@gate.crashing.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20170817000442.GC13471@gate.crashing.org>
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 19:04 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> LRA is easier to work with than old reload, and that makes it better
> Making LRA handle everything reload did is work, and someone needs to
> do it.
> LRA probably needs a few more target hooks (a _few_) to guide its
Like Georg-Johann mentioned before, LRA has been targeted mainly for
mainstream ISAs. And actually it's a pretty reasonable choice. Again,
I don't think that "one RA to rule them all" is a scalable approach.
But that's just my opinion.