On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:30:41PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > > > > On Aug 8, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 12:43:52PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > >>> On Aug 8, 2019, at 12:25 PM, Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> The old reload (reload.c) supports such addressing. As modern > >>> mainstream architectures have no this kind of addressing, it was not > >>> implemented in LRA. > >> > >> Is LRA only intended for "modern mainstream architectures"? > > > > I sure hope not! But it has only been *used* and *tested* much on such, > > so far. > > That's not entirely accurate. At the prodding of people pushing for > the removal of CC0 and reload, I've added LRA support to pdp11 in the > V9 cycle.
I said "much" :-) Pretty much all design input so far has been from "modern mainstream architectures", as far as I can make out. Now one of those has the most "interesting" (for RA) features that many less mainstream archs have (a not-so-very-flat register file), so it should still work pretty well hopefully. > And it works pretty well, in the sense of passing the > compile tests. But I haven't yet examined the code quality vs. the > old one in any detail. That would be quite interesting to see, also for the other ports that still need conversion: how much (if any) degradation should you expect from a straight-up conversion of a port to LRA, without any retuning? Segher