[PATCH] Convert SPARC to LRA

[Jeff Law]

On 09/28/2015 02:28 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> 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 :-)
Right.  And if we set the expectation that a new port must use LRA, then 
I think we're fine.

>
> 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".
FWIW, I tried to build a simple cc0 target with LRA (v850-elf), but it 
fell over pretty early.  Essentially LRA doesn't seem to be cc0-aware in 
split_reg as ultimately inserted something between a cc0-setter and 
cc0-user.  Oops.


jeff