On 05/22/2015 10:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 22 May 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > >> 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? > > All arguments still apply apart from the fact that we'll have plenty > of releases from the GCC 5 branch (and the alternatives patch is > safe there). > > So for GCC 5 I'm willing to leave it to the architecture maintainers, > but please wait for other RMs to chime in.
I'll set a grace period of let's say a month or so and commit the patches as long as no veto comes up until then. Ok? -Andreas-
