This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [4.9 PATCH, alpha]: Switch alpha to LRA
- From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- To: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:35:02 +0200
- Subject: Re: [4.9 PATCH, alpha]: Switch alpha to LRA
- References: <CAFULd4be3azVdXQhpnQE7Qee8350480TdQM1woUnNuav3Ehw9g at mail dot gmail dot com> <51070AFC dot 9060200 at redhat dot com> <CAFULd4aYwsf2xpwbuMznNWE5q35BaCuoG=uB3UUkSvFDOVamfg at mail dot gmail dot com> <51757484 dot 4000608 at redhat dot com> <CABu31nOsM_f4mJ7cV6K8__WqBHGTCkUwHEihtyvsgbvVoG1vTw at mail dot gmail dot com> <51758CB7 dot 1070409 at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Vladimir Makarov <email@example.com> wrote:
> I never tried alpha with LRA. So it is not assumed that LRA should work on
> alpha. But I am sure LRA can work for alpha if some efforts will be spent.
> Porting LRA to a new target always involves changes in .md and
> machine-dependent files. This process was even not started.
> Actually, Uros showed that Alpha will not require a lot of efforts as code
> in most cases is already generated successfully. I don't remember any
> target which I tried to port LRA in such a good shape at the beginning of
> LRA port process.
Vladimir, thanks for encouraging words, it looks that all hope is not
lost yet. However, I would like to point out that I have tested only
ev68 architecture, and apparently all the interesting stuff is in the
way ev4 and ev5 are handled. I can certainly spend a reasonable time
to bring the port up to life, but for now, I propose to revert the
patch, until ev4 bootstrap is fixed.