This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] config.gcc: Obsolete c4x.
- From: Ralf Corsepius <ralf dot corsepius at rtems dot org>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Kazu Hirata <kazu at cs dot umass dot edu>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, m dot hayes at elec dot canterbury dot ac dot nz, Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 11:45:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] config.gcc: Obsolete c4x.
- References: <email@example.com> <42702A83.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:12 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Kazu Hirata wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Attached is a patch to obsolete c4x for both 4.0 and 4.1.
> > When we discuessed this issue a while ago, there was no interest in
> > c4x port for code generation purposes. There were some other
> > interests like using this port to ensure that we are not tied to
> > QImode == 8 bits.
This matches with my memory, but ...
1. I don't recall any consensus on abandoning QImode!=8bits.
AFAIK, the c4x is the only platform w/ QImode !=8bit in GCC, which
causes your patch to abandoning the only testing platform for such
Are you wanting to abandon QImode != 8bit? This, IMO would qualify as a
serious design defect in GCC (Admitted, we all know GCC has problems
related to this, but abandoning it and means loss of generality)
2. tic4x-gcc-3.4.x is buildable, tic4x-gcc-4.x had never built.
i.e. actually a regression has occurred sometime between 3.4.x and 4.0,
which had slipped through GCC-regression testing cracks.
> > Tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu. OK to apply?
IMHO: No, you are going too far.
.. As well I consider Mark to be going too far in "nodding off" this