Re: Status of m32c target?

> It's a bit like writing a new backend, except you have all this existing > code to worry about as well. Unless you start from scratch (which may > not be such a bad idea: you get to modernise it all, and it isn't _really_ > from scratch, you can peek at the old code and copy stuff from it). I

Re: Status of m32c target?

Hi! On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:57:35AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > > On 01/19/2018 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > >> cc0 needs to die. That doesn't mean that any particular target needs to > >> be dropped -- it just means that someone has to

Re: Status of m32c target?

> On Jan 22, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:57:35AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Jan 19 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >>> On 01/19/2018 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> cc0 needs to die. That doesn't mean

Re: Status of m32c target?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:57:35AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 19 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > > On 01/19/2018 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > >> cc0 needs to die. That doesn't mean that any particular target needs to > >> be dropped -- it just means that someone has to

Re: Status of m32c target?

Hi, On Fri, Jan 19 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 01/19/2018 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > >> cc0 needs to die. That doesn't mean that any particular target needs to >> be dropped -- it just means that someone has to step forward to do the >> conversion. > > Unifying two parallel threads:

Re: Status of m32c target?

On 01/19/2018 10:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote: cc0 needs to die. That doesn't mean that any particular target needs to be dropped -- it just means that someone has to step forward to do the conversion. Unifying two parallel threads: might this be a good project for GSoC? -Sandra

Re: Status of m32c target?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 07:58:02PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > - cc0 does a good job and did always a good job in the past. In the > > years I contributed to avr, there hasn't been a single cc0 flaw (all the > > few, minor cc0-related issues were avr BE issues). cc0 does not do a good job at

Re: Status of m32c target?

> Yes, I know that CCmode can represent condition code. But just the fact > that it can represent it doesn't make it superior or cc0 inferior or > bad. Having different representations for the same thing has also its > obvious upsides (think of different representations in maths or > physics),

Re: Status of m32c target?

On 01/19/2018 06:33 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > On 13.01.2018 00:07, 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

Re: Status of m32c target?

On 13.01.2018 00:07, 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

Re: Status of m32c target?

Jeff Law writes: > A change in reload back in 2016 (IIRC) has effectively made m32c > unusable. The limits of the register file create horrible problems for > reload. > > I was going to suggest deprecation for gcc-8 given how badly it was > broken in gcc-7 and the lack of

Re: Status of m32c target?

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:28:25AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > Is cc0 conversion enough to get m68k off the chopping block? > I would think so for this round. I suspect there'd be another round in > the future to convert to LRA, but I suspect that'd be *much* smaller. Yeah. And converting to LRA

Re: Status of m32c target?

On 01/15/2018 11:11 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On 1/15/2018 11:31 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> 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

Re: Status of m32c target?

On 1/15/2018 11:31 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: 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

Re: Status of m32c target?

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

Re: Status of m32c target?

On 01/15/2018 05:46 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, 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

Re: Status of m32c target?

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, 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

Re: Status of m32c target?

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

Re: Status of m32c target?

On 1/12/2018 5:40 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:29:29PM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote: What's the list of targets under consideration? Anything that still uses cc0 when the cull is made. Current targets using cc0 are: h8300, v850, cris, pdp11, vax, cr16,

Re: Status of m32c target?

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:29:29PM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote: > What's the list of targets under consideration? Anything that still uses cc0 when the cull is made. Current targets using cc0 are: h8300, v850, cris, pdp11, vax, cr16, m68k, avr. Segher

Re: Status of m32c target?

On 1/12/2018 5:16 PM, 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

Re: Status of m32c target?

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

Re: Status of m32c target?

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

Re: Status of m32c target?

Jeff Law writes: > 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. As much as I use the m32c target, I have to agree. I've tried many times to fix its reload problems to no avail, and just don't

Re: Status of m32c target?

On 01/12/2018 07:24 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:02:40AM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> what is the status of the m32c target? There are some open bugs that >> prevent the C/C++ compiler build: >> >>

Re: Status of m32c target?

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:02:40AM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote: > what is the status of the m32c target? There are some open bugs that > prevent the C/C++ compiler build: > >