On 10.12.25 14:28, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 3:07 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc <[email protected]> wrote: >> Why can't you keep the port maintained out of tree like you do already >> for glibc and the kernel? >> I am not seeing why it needs to be upstream because right now it is >> blocking cleanups and there is no way for anyone outside of your group >> to be able to test it. > > I suppose that the target blocks cleanups means maintaining it out-of-tree > is not easily possible.
Also I think the GCC actually benefits from the ia64 port. A good example are bugs 111425 ([1]) and 116627 ([2]): I filed [1] in September 2023, but the problem was actually detected even earlier than that by Debian kernel builds for ia64 (sadly no longer accessible). The same issue ([2]) was then detected another time for armv6l, but only about a year later. It was fixed in a month's time. Actually Andrew noticed the relation first. [1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111425 [2]: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116627 > IMO as there is interest in having the Itanium port in-tree and work is done > when required (like enabling LRA) I see no reason for deprecating or removing > the port. There are other unmaintained ports and frontends and IMO this > looks like a double-standard to me. > > I do agree that posting testresults from trunk semi-regularly is an important > sign of activity in addition to the bootstrap work folks are doing (but not > so much visible). Yeah, that visibility needs to be improved. I fully agree. Cheers, Frank > Thanks, > Richard.
