[PATCH] Convert SPARC to LRA

[Jeff Law]

On 09/29/2015 08:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 09/29/2015 07:19 AM, Oleg Endo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 15:28 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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".
>>>
>>>
>>> Just for my understanding ... what's the definition of
>>> "maintenance mode" or "unmaintained"?
>>
>> I'm not sure there's any formal definition.
>>
>> If the port isn't getting tested, bugs aren't getting fixed, fails
>> to build, etc then it's probably a good bet you could put it into
>> the unmaintained bucket.
>>
>> If the port does get occasional fixes (primarily driven by BZs),
>> but not getting updated on a regular basis (such as conversion to
>> LRA, conversion to RTL prologue/epilogue, etc), may be only getting
>> occasional testing, etc. Then it's probably fair to call it in
>> maintenance mode.  A great example IMHO would be the m68k.
>
> Another criteria would be available hardware for which both the PA
> and alpha ports are a good example.  When you can't buy new hardware
> then targets that could formerly host GCC quickly rot to the state
> where only cross-compilation is viable (and having "old" GCC is good
> enough).
Very true. Actually the PA is the best example there.  Alpha I believe 
has a functional-enough QEMU port to do real work and m68k has Aranym 
which I've used to bootstrap m68k within the last 18 months.  Hell, I 
think Aranym actually ran faster than the last shipping real hardware!

> I'd say that all ports not in maintainance mode should be at least
> secondary archs as we can expect maintainers to be around to keep it
> at the quality level we expect for secondary targets.  Now I'd like
> to do the opposite conclusion and declare all non-primary/secondary
> targets as in maintainance mode ... ;) We have 49 targets (counting
> directories) and 7 of them compose the list of primary and secondary
> triplets.
I could live with that.

jeff