On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 16:03 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 21:05 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > I guess the most important question is what guarantees there are that it > > won't affect non-powerpc* ports too much (my main concern is the 9/26 patch, > > plus the C++ FE / libstdc++ changes), and how much does this affect > > code generation and overall stability of the PowerPC big endian existing > > targets. > > > > Jakub > > > > The three pieces that are somewhat controversial for non-powerpc targets > are 9/26, 10/26, 15/26.
I forgot to mention that these bits have all been upstream in trunk since last autumn, so there's been quite a bit of burn-in at that level. Obviously that is not the same as being burned in on 4.8, but it does help provide a bit of confidence. Bill > > * Uli and Alan, can you speak to any concerns for 9/26? > > * 10/26 hits libstdc++, but only in a minor way for the extract_symvers > script; it adds a sed to ignore a string added for powerpc64le, so > shouldn't be a problem. > > * 15/26 might be one we can do without. I need to check with Peter > Bergner, who originally backported Fabien's patch, but unfortunately he > is on vacation. That patch fixed a problem that originated on an x86 > platform. I can try respinning the patch series without this one and > see what breaks, or if Peter happens to see this while he's on vacation, > perhaps he can comment. > > For PowerPC targets, I have already checked out powerpc64-linux (big > endian). As David mentioned, I need to apply the patch series on an AIX > machine and test it before this can be accepted. We don't have any way > of testing the eabi stuff, so community help would be very much > appreciated there. > > Thanks, > Bill