On 21/02/2017 16:14, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
On Feb 17, 2017, at 01:10 , David Edelsohn wrote:
This is not a new issue. The maintainer did not suddenly resign last
week. There have been numerous efforts to reach out to the SPE
community
On 15/03/2017 14:26, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
I do not think VLE can get in, not in its current shape at least.
That's unfortunate. Disregarding the SPE splitting plan for a moment,
what do you think would need to be done to get it into shape? I had
thought we were almost there with the patc
Hi Segher,
On 16/03/2017 19:24, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
e500mc (like e5500, e6500) are just PowerPC (and they use the usual ABIs),
so those should stay on the "rs6000 side".
Agreed.
Are you proposing to take on the task of actually splitting it yourself?
If so, that would make me a lot hap
On 16/03/2017 21:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
The e200z3 upwards have SPE units. None of them have classic FP. So it
would make most sense for the e200/VLE support to be part of the SPE
backend rather than the classic PowerPC backend.
Great to hear! And all e300 are purely "classic"?
That's
On 13/03/2017 18:01, Andrew Jenner wrote:
I volunteer to be the point of contact for the SPE port.
Over here at CodeSourcery/Mentor Embedded, we have a strong interest in
SPE *not* being deprecated (we actively ship toolchain products with SPE
multilibs, and have customers for which these are
On 21/06/2017 16:40, David Edelsohn wrote:
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Andrew Jenner as PowerPC SPE port maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Andrew on his new role.
Andrew, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file
Hi Dennis,
On 08/06/2018 11:37, Dennis Luehring wrote:
is the patch already integrated into mainline?
No, it's not.
is this the most recent development place?
https://github.com/tkchia/gcc-ia16
Yes, that's the right place.
Andrew
On 08/06/2018 12:43, Dennis Luehring wrote:
is the patch already integrated into mainline?
No, it's not.
will that ever happen?
Hard to say. There's no reason in principle why it couldn't happen, but
there's not a big demand for it, so it would require someone taking the
time and trouble t
I'm investigating the reason why the amount of stack used by some pieces
of code increased significantly since gcc 3.3. Notably,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25505 has a testcase which
went up from 512 bytes to 20K between gcc 3.3 and 4.x, then back down to
~5K with later optimiz
