[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #64 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- FYI, I am setting up a PowerPCSPE porterbox the next days and hope to get it added to the gcc compile farm as a test machine. So any patches can be tested there.

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #63 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Just wanted to ask whether there is an updated patch available for testing?

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #62 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #61) > Sorry, once again I have been totally swamped by other work. It's now > looking like I should have some time to work on this in early July. Ok,

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #61 from Andrew Jenner --- Sorry, once again I have been totally swamped by other work. It's now looking like I should have some time to work on this in early July.

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #60 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Ping?

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #59 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #58) > Acknowledged. I will try to get to that later this week. Any news on this? News from Debian's side is that we have upgraded build capacity for

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #58 from Andrew Jenner --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #57) > Andrew, could you refresh your patch for the current trunk branch? > > It doesn't fully apply for me. Acknowledged. I will try to get to that

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #57 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Andrew, could you refresh your patch for the current trunk branch? It doesn't fully apply for me.

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #56 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Another issue: In file included from ../.././gcc/config/powerpcspe/powerpcspe.h:1865:0, from ./tm.h:25, from ../.././gcc/genopinit.c:24:

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #55 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- This seems to help: diff --git a/gcc/config/powerpcspe/powerpcspe.md b/gcc/config/powerpcspe/powerpcspe.md index 746f2bd1ee3..2e08bcea2b5 100644 --- a/gcc/config/powerpcspe/powerpcspe.md +++

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #54 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Just tried a native build with gcc from trunk plus the patch, fails due to an apparent syntax error: powerpc-linux-gnuspe-g++ -std=gnu++98 -g -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #53 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #52) > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #51) > > Absolutely. Where should I test the patch? Natively on powerpcspe? On > > x86_64? Or

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #52 from Andrew Jenner --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #51) > Absolutely. Where should I test the patch? Natively on powerpcspe? On > x86_64? Or anything else? We have a wide range of architectures available >

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #51 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #50), > > Thanks for the offer of help. I already have hardware, but I need to get my > test scripts in order. Ok, great! > I'm attaching my current

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Andrew Jenner changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #43312|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #49 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Hi Andrew! (In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #21) > I'm still actively working on it. The patch is close to ready for commit > now, I think - I'm going to try to get it committed by the

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #48 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #47) > Believe it or not, but the rs6000 port maintainers *care* about older > systems. Then why is something that is still working and being used

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #47 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #35) > > A port does not need maintenance only for that port, and its users, but also > > for GCC itself. All ports are a cost to _all_ GCC developers. If a

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #46 from David Edelsohn --- I understand the issues with Golang and have been raising the issue internally.

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #45 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #42) > See e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/ > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/#toc-RTL-Representation >

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #44 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #41) > SPE mostly is a separate architecture that happens to share many of the > basic mnemonics with PowerPC. Maintaining the SPE port was a burden to

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #43 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 > > --- Comment #40 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz fu-berlin.de> --- > Is

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #42 from Jakub Jelinek --- See e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/ https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/#toc-RTL-Representation https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Machine-Desc.html#Machine-Desc

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #41 from David Edelsohn --- SPE mostly is a separate architecture that happens to share many of the basic mnemonics with PowerPC. Maintaining the SPE port was a burden to the Power/PowerPC maintainers. As discussed in the other

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #40 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Is there documentation like this for gcc? > https://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html Would be very useful for people wanting to help with the old backends.

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #39 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #37) > Not sure about IBM, I as a GCC developer and RM have major problem with the > amount of dead code in the port, because anyone who makes changes to

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #38 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #35) > Do you IBM guys have a hidden agenda to bury the left-overs of Freescale? ;-) I thought Jakub works for RedHat? > The SPE port has already been

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek --- Not sure about IBM, I as a GCC developer and RM have major problem with the amount of dead code in the port, because anyone who makes changes to the middle-end that need backend changes will waste time

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #36 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #33) > Yes, but the port split was done in May last year, and nothing substantial > happened since then. Port maintainance is not about promises, but

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Arseny Solokha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||asolokha at gmx dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #32) > Andrew said he is still working on it. That is not the same as saying the > promise is not going to be kept. gcc isn't a trivial project after all

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #32 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #31) > It would have been announced in gcc-7/changes.html (linked from the > announcement on gcc-announce@, I do hope you read that?), but instead of

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #31 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #30) > > The announcement of the intent to obsolete the port has been posted already > > more than a year ago, if you look in the comments in this

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #30 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29) > The rs6000 backend had since the split around 290 commits that didn't touch > the powerpcspe backend, if we just assume that only 20% of those are

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- The port is not actively maintained and contains estimated 75%-80% of dead code. The rs6000 backend had since the split around 290 commits that didn't touch the powerpcspe backend, if we just assume that

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #28 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Just built two weeks ago, natively: root@atlantis:~> gcc-8 -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc-8 COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-linux-gnuspe/8/lto-wrapper Target:

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||glaubitz at physik dot

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Apr 18 08:47:26 2018 New Revision: 259461 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259461=gcc=rev Log: PR target/81084 * config.gcc: Obsolete powerpc*-*-*spe*.

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #24 from Andrew Jenner --- Sorry for my lack of communication on this. Realistically, it doesn't look like I'm going to be able to get the powerpcspe port to the appropriate state by the GCC 8 rc1, so please feel free to deprecate or

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek --- We aim to do GCC 8 rc1 in the middle of next week, I'm afraid if powerpcspe is still in this sorry state by then, then it is better to remove it and re-add when/if it is in better shape. Or at least

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek --- Another gentle ping. As has been mentioned, powerpcspe also lacks gcc-8/changes.html entry.

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #21 from Andrew Jenner --- I'm still actively working on it. The patch is close to ready for commit now, I think - I'm going to try to get it committed by the end of the week.

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- Andrew, a friendly ping on this. The #c13 patch looks like a good progress, what happened to it?

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- Similarly, config.gcc has: powerpc*-*-*spe*) cpu_type=powerpcspe extra_headers="ppc-asm.h altivec.h spe.h ppu_intrinsics.h paired.h spu2vmx.h vec_types.h si2vmx.h htmintrin.h htmxlintrin.h"

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- Any further progress? E.g. when you've taken away all the -mcpu= options but 2, why not take away all the powerpcspe-cpus.def entries but the two, masks for other CPUs, etc. Do those CPUs support Altivec

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #17 from Andrew Jenner --- I have committed another small patch to the .opt files: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00247.html and updated my docs patch per Joseph's feedback:

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #16 from Andrew Jenner --- I have committed a patch to the .opt files: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00114.html I have also submitted a patch to the documentation:

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, andrewjenner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 > > Andrew Jenner changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Andrew Jenner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Andrew Jenner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Jenner --- Created attachment 43312 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43312=edit Patch in progress so far

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Jenner --- I have been reading gcc-patches and keeping a list of the rs6000 changes that I will need to port. I will go through the svn log for rs6000 as well to make sure I haven't missed anything. Thanks!

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- Even rs6000 changes related to IEEE long double support are potentially relevant to powerpcspe (not anything related to binary128 in VSX, obviously, but more generic IEEE long double

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- That would be appreciated. Besides killing the non-SPE relevant stuff in powerpcspe, I think a review of the rs6000 changes from the last year that might be relevant to powerpcspe is desirable too. While

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Jenner --- Sorry for the lack of comment from me - I only just saw this bug (I was not receiving email from bugzilla but hopefully I have fixed this now). I am part-way through the cleanup. I will commit what I have

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Any progress here?

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P4 |P1 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 12, 2017 12:51:35 AM GMT+01:00, law at redhat dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 > >Jeffrey A. Law changed: > >

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrewjenner at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- port is also unmaintained (no MAINTAINERS entry)

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---