Friday, February 23, 2024 7:00 PM Richard Sandiford wrote: > Seconded. :) Thanks also for the very clear organisation of the series, and > for > commonising code rather than cut-&-pasting it.
Thank you, Richard, for the valuable feedback. It is great to hear that the series structure is easy to review. That work has been done before submitting v1. > FWIW, I agree with all the comments posted so far, and just sent some other > comments too. I think my main high-level comments are: > > - Could you double-check that all the code in the common files are > used on both aarch64 and x86? I think it's OK to move code outside > of x86 even if aarch64 doesn't want to use it, provided that it makes > conceptual target-independent sense. But it's not clear whether > unused code is deliberate or not (e.g. the EXTRA_OS_CPP_BUILTINS > thing I mentioned in the part 2 review). All files from the mingw folder are used by the aarch64 target. Some of them are used partially as mingw.cc. As mentioned in the cover letter, the current contribution covers only the C scope. EXTRA_OS_CPP_BUILTINS is one example which is not used. > - Could you test with all languages enabled, and say what languages > are supported? Some languages require an existing compiler for > the same language and so are more difficult to bootstrap for > a new port. I suppose you'd need a cross-host build first, > then use the cross-compiled compilers to bootstrap. > > Thanks, > Richard Our CI for the current contribution uses and tests only the C language for the aarch64-w64-mingw32 target. Regards, Evgeny
