On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:23:37PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > There are more ports using reload than LRA now. Even some major ports > (e.g. ppc64) did not switch to LRA.
There still are some failures in the testsuite (ICEs even) so we're not there yet. > I usually say target maintainers, that if they don't switch LRA they > probably will have problems with maintenance and development in a long > perspective. New things are easier to implement in LRA. It is also true that new *ports* are easier to do with LRA than with reload :-) > >It *may* be time to decree that any new ports must use the LRA path > >rather than reload. I'm still on the fence with that. > > That is probably a good policy I see now. Porting LRA might be not an > easy task as a lot of target hooks (and even insn definitions, e.g. > hints *?!) were written taking reload algorithms into account. LRA uses > different ones and many hook implementations are misleading. Many > target ports are just in a maintenance mode and simply there are no > resources to do LRA port for this targets. So I believe reload will > stay for a long time. We can at least change the default to LRA, so new ports get it unless they like to hurt themselves. I don't think it makes sense to keep reload around *just* for the ports that are in "maintenance mode": by the time we are down to *just* those ports, it makes more sense to relabel them as "unmaintained". Segher