This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: [patch] config.gcc: Obsolete c4x.



Svein..I cc'ed you since you might be interested in this. If so, you are the most active c4x submitter I know of and thought you might want to get involved in the gcc c4x port.

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
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
targets.


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.

To me, this is the crux of the matter. This port was buildable in the last major release and it regressed.


<sarcasm on>
I don't think we want to use the "it broke in a release, obsolete it" rule. If we do, it won't take long before there are no targets or languages left and gcc will be easy to maintain because there won't be any code left. ;)
<sarcasm off>


The sad relatity is that there is not an active maintainer for the c4x but at the same time, this target got obsoleted too late in the release process for what is really a regression from 3.4.x to 4.x which no one wanted to fix.

Tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu. OK to apply?

IMHO: No, you are going too far.



OK.


.. As well I consider Mark to be going too far in "nodding off" this
patch ..

Ralf




--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel@OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
   Support Available             (256) 722-9985


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