This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Proposed targets to obsolete for 3.5, first pass

On Sunday 20 June 2004 22:23, Dave Hudson wrote:
> > ip2k-*
> >   The port does everything we try to avoid these days: cc0, does not use
> >   define_constants, it uses assembly prologues/epilogues, etc.  There
> >   are three bugs open for this target (PR13749, PR13754, and PR 13817)
> >   that prevent it from producing code with a cross-compiler, for even the
> >   most trivial C input.  Test results have never been reported for ip2k.
> >   Again, most work on this ports was done by people doing ISO C90 proto
> >   work and such, hardly any actual maintainance on the port was done in
> >   the past 2 years.
> I'd very much like to retain this in the tree as we've just been waiting
>   for the tree-SSA merge before picking up maintenance of this one once
> more (our production version of ip2k-gcc has had a lot of work done on
> it but and I'm planning to merge this back over the next couple of
> months).  FWIW we've also got an ip3k compiler that we'll be
> contributing sometime soon.

IMHO that's not good enough.  If you have a production version outside
of the FSF tree, then what is the port doing in the FSF tree in the
first place?  For example, right now the FSF gcc 3.4 does not support
ip2k, it fails on simple C code such as that of PR13754.

Also, does maitenance of this port include _updating_ it to move away
from old GCC interfaces, such as RTL prologues/epilogues and cc0?  That
is just as much part of maintaining a port as just making sure it works
with existing old interfaces.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]