BountySource campaign for gcc PR/91851

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:46:27PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> For AVR -- an other port affected by cc0 removal -- there is a 
> LLVM/Clang port.  It' not as mature as GCC's avr port, but what counts 
> in the end is support / responsiveness from the community and an 
> openness for the requirements of deeply embedded targets.

And you think you find that less in GCC?  Huh.

> I had gcc 
> patches rejected by global maintainers (just a no-op hook for other 
> targets) because it appeared they didn't even understand what the patch 
> is about (and kept proposing alternative "solutions" that totally missed 
> the point).

Please point me to that.  In private mail, if you prefer.

> And code quality is deteriorating from version to version.  Whatever you 
> do in the backend to mitigate it, there's always global changes that 
> shreds any improvements...

I don't see that.  Things that aren't maintained and have no good tripwire
tests for code quality can (and will) degrade naturally, of course.  But
maintained targets do not normally have a hard time keeping up.

> Btw, does GCC support clobbering registers in branches (or 
> cbranch<mode>4 for that matter)?  This requirement would come up when 
> transitioning avr to cc_mode because cbranches would live post reload.

Of course.  You cannot have *reloads* on branches, that is all.


Segher