On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:22:56AM -0700, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Roman Divacky <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:12:37AM -0700, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Roman Divacky <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Author: rdivacky > > > > Date: Tue May 29 11:10:50 2012 > > > > New Revision: 157626 > > > > > > > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=157626&view=rev > > > > Log: > > > > Sparc is bigendian. > > > > > > > > > > Testcase? > > > > > > We have woefully poor testing of sparc targets; we should add tests first > > > if there is going to be on-going maintenance of the target. > > > > I was just exploring what the status of sparc port is and noticed that. I > > dont > > think we test this stuff anywhere. > > > > I also think that the sparc port is in quite a bad shape (32bit only, and > > even > > that is not exactly usable, no maintainer or anyone who cares, basically no > > commit activity) :( > > > I know the SPARC backend was saved by some folks interested largely in > academia... > > I would suggest that we either remove all SPARC support from the Clang FE, > or get the same folks to step forward and write at least basic sanity tests > for it. Care to write up an email and send it to cfe-dev and llvmdev?
I really was just exploring a bit the status. I also mailed the guy (http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~venkatra/) who claimed he's willing to fix any sparc bug in llvm last week and got no reply. The removal of sparc was discussed quite recently actually: http://old.nabble.com/is-anyone-using-the-sparc-backend--td32721152.html _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
