On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 8:09 PM Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 07:39:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > Like if they cannot even build their target libraries aka their build will > > fail. It would be nice to identify those and, say, make at least -mlra > > available to all ports that currently do not have a way to enable LRA? > > It is up to the target maintainers to make such support, it is a machine > flag after all (-m are machine flags, -f are more general flags). > > There has been ample warning, see <https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LRAIsDefault> > for example. GCC 13 release will be six years after that, I'd hope that > that is enough. > > Just using > targetm.lra_p = default_lra_p; > is enough to test. I don't have a setup to build all targets (that > requires target headers, to begin with), and it is up to the target > maintainers to decide how they want things fixed anyway. > > I'll put up a preliminary branch for the generic patches, but let me > update it to trunk first :-)
Just saying that the changes.html note has not much information but instead will spread FUD without indicating which ports would be dysfunctional after removing reload support (aka will even no longer build). So I'd say we don't want this note in changes.html in the proposed form. Richard. > > > Segher
