[PATCH] Convert SPARC to LRA

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:23:37PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> There are more ports using reload than LRA now.  Even some major ports 
> (e.g. ppc64) did not switch to LRA.

There still are some failures in the testsuite (ICEs even) so we're
not there yet.

> I usually say target maintainers, that if they don't switch LRA they 
> probably will have problems with maintenance and development in a long 
> perspective.  New things are easier to implement in LRA.

It is also true that new *ports* are easier to do with LRA than with
reload :-)

> >It *may* be time to decree that any new ports must use the LRA path 
> >rather than reload.  I'm still on the fence with that.
> 
> That is probably a good policy I see now.  Porting LRA might be not an 
> easy task as a lot of target hooks (and even insn definitions, e.g. 
> hints *?!) were written taking reload algorithms into account. LRA uses 
> different ones and many hook implementations are misleading.  Many 
> target ports are just in a maintenance mode and simply there are no 
> resources to do LRA port for this targets.  So I believe reload will 
> stay for a long time.

We can at least change the default to LRA, so new ports get it unless
they like to hurt themselves.

I don't think it makes sense to keep reload around *just* for the ports
that are in "maintenance mode": by the time we are down to *just* those
ports, it makes more sense to relabel them as "unmaintained".


Segher