On Fri, 2016-04-01 12:06:20 -0700, Jake Hamby <jehamby...@me.com> wrote: > I apologize for the poor quality of the initial version of the patch > that I submitted. I think I may have also mangled it by not
Don't apologize! Posting work early enables others to comment on it. GCC is a highly complex beast; nobody will produce a perfectly looking patch on their first try. [...] > To be honest, my hope by sending out my work now, even in such a > rough state, would be to try to avoid deprecating the GCC port to > VAX, if only because: 1) there doesn't seem to be a compelling > reason to remove support for it since it doesn't use any really old > code paths that aren't also used by other backends (e.g. m68k and > Atmel AVR use cc0, IBM S/390 uses non-IEEE FP formats), so it > doesn't seem to be preventing any optimizations or code refactoring > elsewhere in GCC that I could see, 2) even though NetBSD could > continue to support VAX GCC, I noticed in the ChangeLogs that > whenever somebody has made a change to a definition that affects the > backends, they're usually very good about updating all of the > backends so that they continue to compile, at least. So leaving the > VAX backend in the tree would be beneficial from a maintenance > standpoint for users of it, 3) the VAX backend is perhaps somewhat > useful as a test case for GCC because so many unusual RTX standard > instructions were obviously defined *for* it (although x86 defines a > lot of them, too), although my interest is personally in preserving > an interesting piece of computer history, and for nostalgia > purposes. As of now, ther VAX backend isn't near deprecation IMO. There'a maintainer (Matt), who did quite a revamp a few years ago bringing the VAX backend quite forward. I also quite care for that backend and the Build Robot I'm running is primarily(!) running to detect VAX breakages early. (In fact, quite often Matt and I communicate over submitted patches to the VAX backend.) > I sent an earlier email to port-vax suggesting that future > discussions of this project aren't relevant to gcc-patches, but I > did want to get it on a few people's radar on the NetBSD side and > try to solicit a bit of help on the questions I had as to how to > avoid having to add that hack to gcc/except.c to make the optimizer > not delete the insns. All of the other stuff can be worked on in > NetBSD-current and avoid bothering the 99% of people who subscribe > to gcc-patches who have no interest in the VAX backend. You should /for sure/ bother the gcc-patches people! Please keep Cc'ing patches to that mailing list. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481 Signature of: [Nach Firefox-Update gibt es Empfehlungen, wenn man einen neuen Tab aufmacht.] the second : 13:26 <@jbglaw> "Hide the new tab page" 13:27 <@jbglaw> Warum zum Teufel sind gerade Kacheln so ungeheuer angesagt?! 13:57 <@andrel> die Mozilla Foundation hat eine LKW Ladung Fugenkitt gespendet bekommen?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature