On 05/06/2014 01:09 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 05/05/2014 19:36, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Joshua Kinard <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I cannot speak for anything outside of the standard/original MIPS ISAs, but >>> I thought we killed off mips1 long ago. When did that come back? Almost >>> anything out there should be able to handle mips2 at a bare minimum (only >>> R2000 and R3000-based systems, like certain DECStations, would need mips1). >>> mips2 is also the branch point for the mips32r* ISAs, so if any of the >>> original, 32-bit ISAs should be kept, that would be mips2. mips1 can go. >> >> We've had this discussion before. If you're going to have >mips2 >> stages, then there's zero reason to have mips2 stages since mips2 >> effectively doesn't exist. > > It's been a while, but I thought we only kept a mips2 stage1 around for > those that wanted a baseline to build their own stage2 or stage3's from. > You can do this with a mips1 as well, but mips2 is, more or less, the > baseline from which all other possible ISAs and stages can be built from, as > long as you don't care about R2k or R3k CPUs. stage3's can be the higher > mips32r* ISAs. > > I personally don't see a point in having mips1 or mips2 stage3's, only a > stage1 to use as a bootstrap for new machines or ISAs. >
(picking up a random thread) Ok thanks for the replies. Ok I think it's safe to proceed with the following: - Stop mips1 builds (we don't have mips2) - Reduce the frequency to once-a-year for mips3 and mips4. Updating these stages every year with catalyst will be a lot of fun ;) @kumba: You mentioned too many times that I wanted to "drop" support for mips3 and mips4. I never said that (I am sort-of tired keep repeating that). All I said (again) was to reduce the frequency or stop building them at all. Users can still get an existing mips3/mips4 stage3 and update themselves -- Regards, Markos Chandras
