This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Subreg-byte patches (was: Branching for GCC 3.0)
- To: pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at (Gerald Pfeifer)
- Subject: Re: Subreg-byte patches (was: Branching for GCC 3.0)
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:01:07 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: jakub at redhat dot com (Jakub Jelinek), law at redhat dot com (Jeffrey A Law), Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com (Franz Sirl), robertlipe at usa dot net (Robert Lipe), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> >>> Well, actually I would think the subreg-byte-branch got more real world
> >>> testing on alpha/x86/sparc than the current mainline, cause it's part of
> >>> the RedHat7 gcc-2.96 AFAIK.
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > No, the patch is used on all platforms (ie. alpha, x86, sparc, sparc64 at
> > least, plus I think some people are using the same source on powerpc) all
> > the time.
> In my opinion that means we should really consider integrating it into our
> mainline ASAP, and in fact an additional release criterion for GCC 3.0.
> Else, GNU/Linux distributions for SPARC (which means UltraSPARC these
> days) have *no* *choice* but rolling a GCC release of their own, similiar
> to what Red Hat did with GCC 2.96, and we certainly don't really want
> that, do we?
I want to be careful about giving Mark a big additional job to do, but I
see your point. In an ideal world this thing would have been merged some
time ago, but lacking time machines we have to decide now.
What is the level of effort required to get the subreg patch in? How
badly have things diverged since 2.96-RH was forked off?