On May 27, 2013, at 21:12, Rui Paulo <rpa...@felyko.com> wrote: > On 27 May 2013, at 09:41, Pedro Giffuni <p...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Almost a year ago I tried to bring in the support for AMD's barcelona >> chipset into our gcc. This actually filled a lot of holes in that were left >> when similar intel support was brought in. >> >> Unfortunately I had to revert rapidly such support as it broke building >> some C++ ports even when it was not being used. >> >> jkim@ did some cleanup of the support and the patch has been >> gathering rust here: >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/reworked-r236962-3.diff >> >> The patch still applies cleanly and there is a good chance it will work >> since there have been other fixes merged since the last time. >> >> I did some basic testing and so far it works for me but I don't have >> the specific chipset. Additional testing would be welcome. > > I have to question the general direction of this work. We switched to Clang > as the default compiler for i386/amd64 some months ago and now you're working > on improving our base GCC especially for amd64? I don't really understand how > useful this is. It doesn't strike me as a good idea to see people working on > things that will eventually be replaced / removed.
It is probably a better use of time to work on getting the tree to build with an out-of-tree gcc 4.7 or 4.8 instead. Why spend more effort on a completely dead branch of gcc? Newer gcc's have better code generation, support for more modern CPUs, and better diagnostics (including even those controversial carets ;-). That said, if it is a particular itch somebody wants to scratch, I see no reason not to, as long as it doesn't break anything else... -Dimitry _______________________________________________ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"