On May 27, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > On 27.05.2013 14:38, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On May 27, 2013, at 21:12, Rui Paulo <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 27 May 2013, at 09:41, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> 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 ;-). > > FWIW, upstream gcc has a bug that affects ctfmerge and they have > been very slow to fix it. I submitted a bug report and a workaround > patch for ctfmerge to the Illumos guys but they have been very slow > to review it as well. > > I do agree having out-of-tree compilers is important though; and > much preferable than carrying two compilers ;).
Is this patch in the ports version of gcc at least? Warner _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
