On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:56:09 PDT (-0700), pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 12:54 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/26/24 11:43 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jeff Law:
>
>> On 11/26/24 9:06 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>> OK for trunk? (caveat: not properly tested)
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>> PR translation/90160
>>> * config/csky/csky.cc (csky_configure_build_target): Use %qs when
>>> referring to cpu and arch names.
>>> (csky_option_override): Likewise.
>
>> It may be a dead port at this point. I'm not sure anyone is doing
>> anything with csky.
>
> We are still building glibc with it. 8->
It's still in my tester as well, so I build glibc for it daily.
>
> Last test results have been submitted for glibc 2.34 (three years ago).
> Last potentially non-generic change was from Alibaba (which matches
> the GCC maintainers' employer on record). Would it make sense to reach
> out and ask about port removal at this point?
IIRC it's Alibaba's chip. I'd heard through the grapevine that they're
more focused on RISC-V these days. Xianmiao is definitely active on
the RISC-V side, hopefully he'll chime in (now on cc).
I see nobody responded if csky is a dead port or not.
I am trying to get some ports obsolete for GCC 16 so we can remove
code that is no longer supported in GCC 17.
Looks like the last Linux PR that was csky-specific was for 6.6, which
was almost two years ago. Guo's still around doing Linux stuff in
general, though, so he might know if anyone's still interested?
Thanks,
Andrew
Jeff
