Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2017-01-06 Thread Claudiu Zissulescu
On 16/09/2016 22:37, Segher Boessenkool wrote: Hi! Since a few days TARGET_LRA_P defaults to returning "true". I changed all in-tree ports to still behave the same as before, which for most ports means they use old reload always. All the primary platforms (see the release criteria,

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2017-01-03 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Have any back ends been converted since the default was changed, that > did not already have LRA support? I looked at this in the context of > nios2 a few months ago (when we were still in stage 1) but didn't see an > example patch set for any other back end, or a good description of what > I ne

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2017-01-03 Thread Sandra Loosemore
On 01/03/2017 02:22 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: p.s. Are there plans for converting the SPARC port? The SPARC port has now been converted. Note that the status of the PowerPC port is a bit confusing because both doc/invoke.texi and htdocs/backends.html say that it still uses reload. Have any b

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2017-01-03 Thread David Edelsohn
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> p.s. Are there plans for converting the SPARC port? > > Note that the status of the PowerPC port is a bit confusing because both > doc/invoke.texi and htdocs/backends.html say that it still uses reload. Fixed. Thanks, David

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2017-01-03 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Botcazou Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:22:05 +0100 >> p.s. Are there plans for converting the SPARC port? > > The SPARC port has now been converted. Thanks so much for doing this work, I wish I could have been more helpful.

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2017-01-03 Thread Eric Botcazou
> p.s. Are there plans for converting the SPARC port? The SPARC port has now been converted. Note that the status of the PowerPC port is a bit confusing because both doc/invoke.texi and htdocs/backends.html say that it still uses reload. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-10-10 Thread Eric Botcazou
> > Do we have a Wiki page for the cc0 conversion? If no, I can start one > > based on my fresh experience with the Visium port. > > There is none so far as far as I know. Thanks for volunteering, OK, the page is at https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CC0Transition and linked to from the "Current Project

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-25 Thread Paul.Koning
> On Sep 25, 2016, at 4:46 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >> There is no hurry to kill old reload. As you say, many targets will >> not be converted soon. But one day it will be removed. Not in GCC 7, >> not in GCC 8 almost certainly. But one day. > > Certainly not in GCC 8, the top priority is

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-25 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:46:55AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > There is no hurry to kill old reload. As you say, many targets will > > not be converted soon. But one day it will be removed. Not in GCC 7, > > not in GCC 8 almost certainly. But one day. > > Certainly not in GCC 8, the top pr

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-25 Thread Eric Botcazou
> There is no hurry to kill old reload. As you say, many targets will > not be converted soon. But one day it will be removed. Not in GCC 7, > not in GCC 8 almost certainly. But one day. Certainly not in GCC 8, the top priority is IMO the cc0 thing and you cannot really do both at the same ti

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-25 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 04:28:04PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > > > ANd yes, I see this as a way to deprecating those cc0 targets like > > > the  > > > m68k :-) > > Would be a shame to see m68k go.  There still is time... > > Indeed.  68K is a perfect candidate for addressing mode optimization > (AMS

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-25 Thread Oleg Endo
On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 16:25 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:53:16PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > Under traps for the unwary -- LRA requires the target to not use > > the old  > > cc0 condition code handling... > I added this now, thanks Jeff. > > > > > ANd yes, I

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-17 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Probably the earliest I could look into this again would be > November. OK, fine with me. I'm going to slightly restructure the support of the integer condition codes in preparation for the implementation of the new overflow arithmetic operations, but there should be no overlap. -- Eric Bot

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-17 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Botcazou Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:18:23 +0200 >> I lacked the time to debug it properly so we reverted. > > Do you plan to give it a try again in the near future? I was going to work on this over the past summer, but other responsibilities took up all of my time. Probably the earli

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-17 Thread Eric Botcazou
> I lacked the time to debug it properly so we reverted. Do you plan to give it a try again in the near future? -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-17 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Botcazou Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 23:43:43 +0200 >> p.s. Are there plans for converting the SPARC port? > > There are more than plans - actual patches by DaveM that were installed at > some point and then reverted quickly because of unexpected fallout. Yeah, sparc64 failed to bootstr

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-16 Thread Eric Botcazou
> p.s. Are there plans for converting the SPARC port? There are more than plans - actual patches by DaveM that were installed at some point and then reverted quickly because of unexpected fallout. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-16 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:22:04PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Since a few days TARGET_LRA_P defaults to returning "true". I changed > > all in-tree ports to still behave the same as before, which for most > > ports means they use old reload always. All the primary platforms (see > > the rele

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-16 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:53:16PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > Under traps for the unwary -- LRA requires the target to not use the old > cc0 condition code handling... I added this now, thanks Jeff. > ANd yes, I see this as a way to deprecating those cc0 targets like the > m68k :-) Would be a sh

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-16 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Since a few days TARGET_LRA_P defaults to returning "true". I changed > all in-tree ports to still behave the same as before, which for most > ports means they use old reload always. All the primary platforms (see > the release criteria, ) now > default

Re: Converting to LRA (calling all maintainers)

2016-09-16 Thread Jeff Law
On 09/16/2016 02:37 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: Hi! Since a few days TARGET_LRA_P defaults to returning "true". I changed all in-tree ports to still behave the same as before, which for most ports means they use old reload always. All the primary platforms (see the release criteria,