On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 13/01/18 00:16, Jeff Law wrote: > >On 01/12/2018 04:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > >>On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Jeff Law wrote: > >> > >>>I was going to suggest deprecation for gcc-8 given how badly it was > >>>broken in gcc-7 and the lack of maintenance on the target. > >>While we're considering deprecations, what happened to the idea of setting > >>a timescale by which cc0 targets need to be converted away from cc0 or be > >>removed? > >I don't think we ever really hashed through what that might look like. > > > >I'd be comfortable saying gcc-8 is the deprecation point. I know some > >folks won't like that (someone already said so WRT the m68k, but didn't > >step up to do the conversion), but I think that unless we set a point > >nothing is likely to happen. > > How much work is it to convert the m68k to LRA. Is this person days, > weeks, months or years?
Converting m68k to cc0 is a daunting task. This is a prerequisite to enabling LRA, as mentioned. As Sandra says, switching to LRA is easy in principle, and for simple targets that is all really. For more complex and unusual targets you run into situations LRA does not yet handle. Also, debugging LRA is its own set of skills. Segher
