On 05/22/2015 10:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> in order to get the IBM z13 support into present distros the Linux >> distributors asked me to get this >> stuff upstream into the older GCC branches first. This would ease the whole >> backporting efforts, >> interactions with other patches and would make sure that everybody uses the >> same code level. >> >> This would affect at least the GCC 4.8 and 5 branches but for continuity >> reasons it probably also >> should go into 4.9 then. >> >> The patchset requires only very minor common code changes and therefore >> imposes only a low risk for >> other platforms: >> >> recog: Increased max number of alternatives - v2 >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02059.html > > On branches you'd have to use unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT (where that might > be 32bits on some hosts!). We still support hosts without uint64_t > here. So this might already be a no-go. > >> optabs: Fix vec_perm -> V16QI middle end lowering. >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02058.html >> >> There is definitely some risk for S/390 but this again should be >> relatively low when compiling for CPU levels prio to z13. >> >> For the z13 support itself I've added a bunch of testcases but I've also >> run checks with about 10000 automatically generated testcases not part >> of the patchset. >> >> We also ran the ABI comparison testsuite to compare the GCC and LLVM >> implementations regarding vector data types. >> >> Is it ok to apply the patchset to GCC 4.8, 4.9, and 5 branches as well? > > I'm somewhat missing the point of backporting z13 support. ppc64le > enablement was a different story (IBM basically saying ppc64-linux > is dead), but surely all z13 machines can run non-z13 code just fine. > > s390x-linux-gnu is a secondary platform so I don't think we'd want > to destabilize it (esp. on the 4.8 branch where I expect only one > more release around the end of June with no chance to fix things up). > > So that's a "no" from me basically. But I'm willing to be convinced > otherwise (not having looked into the z13 backend patches at all).
Ok. What about GCC 5 branch? -Andreas-
