On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 6:21 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 5/21/24 8:02 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > > > > > >> On May 21, 2024, at 9:57 AM, Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 5/21/24 12:05 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > >>> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 4:45 PM Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2023, Joern Rennecke wrote: > >>>>> I haven't worked with these targets in years and can't really do > >>>>> sensible maintenance or reviews of patches for them. I am currently > >>>>> working on optimizations for other ports like RISC-V. > >>>> > >>>> I noticed MAINTAINERS was not updated, so pushed the patch below. > >>> That leaves the epiphany port unmaintained. Should we automatically add > >>> such > >>> ports to the list of obsoleted ports? > >> Given that epiphany has randomly failed tests for the last 3+ years due to > >> bugs in its patterns, yes, it really needs to be deprecated. > >> > >> I tried to fix the worst of the offenders in epiphany.md a few years back > >> and gave up. Essentially seemingly innocent changes in the RTL will cause > >> reload to occasionally not see a path to get constraints satisfied. So a > >> test which passes today, will flip to failing tomorrow while some other > >> test of tests will go the other way. > > > > Does LRA make that issue go away, or does it not help? > LRA didn't trivially work on epiphany. I didn't care enough about the > port to try and make it LRA compatible.
In that case LRA will make the issue go away (the port, that is ...). Richard. > > jeff >
