Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

Hi Arseny, On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 10:38:16AM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: > > PRs from the second group were filed by me, so if there's consensus to > > close all > > of them, the ones from this second group I can close myself. I don't > > have the > > right permissions to m

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

> Hi, > > > PRs from the second group were filed by me, so if there's consensus to > close all > of them, the ones from this second group I can close myself. I don't have > the > right permissions to modify PRs reported by someone else, so I'd like to > ask a > volunt

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

On 5/25/20, Arseny Solokha wrote: > Hi, > > >>> >> PRs from the second group were filed by me, so if there's consensus to >>> >> close all >>> >> of them, the ones from this second group I can close myself. I don't >>> >> have the >>> >> right permissions to modify PRs reported by someone else, so

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

Hi, >> >> PRs from the second group were filed by me, so if there's consensus to >> >> close all >> >> of them, the ones from this second group I can close myself. I don't have >> >> the >> >> right permissions to modify PRs reported by someone else, so I'd like to >> >> ask a >> >> volunteer

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

On Wed, 13 May 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > I think that the e200 support was never contributed upstream. > > > > Or rather, it wasn't accepted. Cf. > > , > >

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:42:37AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Sat, 9 May 2020, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > > > Strangely, I failed to find any PR for e200, so maybe some unnoticed ones > > > are still lying around. > > > > I think that the e200 support was never contributed upstream. > >

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

On Sat, 9 May 2020, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Strangely, I failed to find any PR for e200, so maybe some unnoticed ones > > are still lying around. > > I think that the e200 support was never contributed upstream. Or rather, it wasn't accepted. Cf.

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 09:31:55AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > If the bug is still present in supported versions (like gcc-8 or > gcc-9) but will never be fixed (like SPE ones) they might as well be > closed now as WONTFIX. Suggesting anything else will happen to them is > misleading. Yeah, I

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

Hi! On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 01:45:20PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: > > LRA has been supported by the rs6000 port since 2013 (01b1efaa1439), > > and made the default (and only!) option in 2017 (7a5cbf29beb2). Ah, the > > latter was slightly after the split, I see. Did powerpcspe never work > > w

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

* Segher Boessenkool: > I can't speak for Arseny of course, but the reason *I* want this is to > no longer see all those powerpcspe BZs in my powerpc queries -- nothing > ever changes to them, so it's just pointless distraction. Keeping them open might also lead to some users believing that there

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

Hi, On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 08:39:36PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 5/9/20 12:31 PM, Arseny Solokha wrote: > > I'd also like to nominate the following two: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 > > > > wh

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 09:56, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > On 5/9/20 10:31 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > If you mean for PR reasons or good apeparances, no. But it's wrong to > > have bugs left open that only refer to unsupported versions of GCC. If > > none of the supported releases has t

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 19:56, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > On 5/9/20 12:31 PM, Arseny Solokha wrote: > > I'd also like to nominate the following two: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 > > > > which I also cannot

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

On 5/9/20 12:31 PM, Arseny Solokha wrote: > I'd also like to nominate the following two: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 > > which I also cannot close myself. There won't be any further revisions of this > list by me. Th

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

> Otherwise, I'm proposing to finally close all open PRs filed against > powerpcspe. I've been able to identify the following ones: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19490 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30259 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37759 > http

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

> Strangely, I failed to find any PR for e200, so maybe some unnoticed ones > are still lying around. I think that the e200 support was never contributed upstream. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

On 5/9/20 10:31 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > If you mean for PR reasons or good apeparances, no. But it's wrong to > have bugs left open that only refer to unsupported versions of GCC. If > none of the supported releases has the bug (either because it's been > fixed, or the relevant code has been r

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 08:15, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > Hi! > > On 5/9/20 12:15 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > I can do both, if you want, or just the first group? Your choice. > > > > But let's hear other opinions first. > > These bugs document the current issues with the backend as

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

Hi! On 5/9/20 12:15 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > I can do both, if you want, or just the first group? Your choice. > > But let's hear other opinions first. These bugs document the current issues with the backend as it existed in gcc-8 (or was it -9)? The bugs are still in the removed code, s

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

> Hi! >> But it is clearly obvious that the powerpcspe backend won't be revived. After >> two years of development, rs6000 has diverged too much from the split point, >> including LRA adoption. > > LRA has been supported by the rs6000 port since 2013 (01b1efaa1439), > and made the default (and on

Re: [RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

Hi! On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 02:58:11AM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: > over the course of two years that had passed since the deprecation of the > powerpcspe backend, and a year and a half since its removal from gcc, I've > still > been speaking out several times against immediate closing of Bugzi

[RFC] Closing of all remaining Bugzilla PRs against powerpcspe

Hi, over the course of two years that had passed since the deprecation of the powerpcspe backend, and a year and a half since its removal from gcc, I've still been speaking out several times against immediate closing of Bugzilla PRs against that target[1,2]. IIRC, Andrew has been contemplating a r