On 09/28/2015 02:28 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
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 :-)
Right. And if we set the expectation that a new port must use LRA, then
I think we're fine.
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".
FWIW, I tried to build a simple cc0 target with LRA (v850-elf), but it
fell over pretty early. Essentially LRA doesn't seem to be cc0-aware in
split_reg as ultimately inserted something between a cc0-setter and
cc0-user. Oops.
jeff
