https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #64 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
FYI, I am setting up a PowerPCSPE porterbox the next days and hope to get it
added to the gcc compile farm as a test machine. So any patches can be tested
there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #63 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Just wanted to ask whether there is an updated patch available for testing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #62 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #61)
> Sorry, once again I have been totally swamped by other work. It's now
> looking like I should have some time to work on this in early July.
Ok, gre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #61 from Andrew Jenner ---
Sorry, once again I have been totally swamped by other work. It's now looking
like I should have some time to work on this in early July.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #60 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #59 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #58)
> Acknowledged. I will try to get to that later this week.
Any news on this?
News from Debian's side is that we have upgraded build capacity for pow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #58 from Andrew Jenner ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #57)
> Andrew, could you refresh your patch for the current trunk branch?
>
> It doesn't fully apply for me.
Acknowledged. I will try to get to that late
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #57 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Andrew, could you refresh your patch for the current trunk branch?
It doesn't fully apply for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #56 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Another issue:
In file included from ../.././gcc/config/powerpcspe/powerpcspe.h:1865:0,
from ./tm.h:25,
from ../.././gcc/genopinit.c:24:
../.././gcc/config/powe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #55 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
This seems to help:
diff --git a/gcc/config/powerpcspe/powerpcspe.md
b/gcc/config/powerpcspe/powerpcspe.md
index 746f2bd1ee3..2e08bcea2b5 100644
--- a/gcc/config/powerpcspe/powerpcspe.md
+++ b/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #54 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Just tried a native build with gcc from trunk plus the patch, fails due to an
apparent syntax error:
powerpc-linux-gnuspe-g++ -std=gnu++98 -g -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #53 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #52)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #51)
> > Absolutely. Where should I test the patch? Natively on powerpcspe? On
> > x86_64? Or an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #52 from Andrew Jenner ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #51)
> Absolutely. Where should I test the patch? Natively on powerpcspe? On
> x86_64? Or anything else? We have a wide range of architectures available
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #51 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #50),
>
> Thanks for the offer of help. I already have hardware, but I need to get my
> test scripts in order.
Ok, great!
> I'm attaching my current pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Andrew Jenner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43312|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #49 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Hi Andrew!
(In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #21)
> I'm still actively working on it. The patch is close to ready for commit
> now, I think - I'm going to try to get it committed by the en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #48 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #47)
> Believe it or not, but the rs6000 port maintainers *care* about older
> systems.
Then why is something that is still working and being used by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #47 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #35)
> > A port does not need maintenance only for that port, and its users, but also
> > for GCC itself. All ports are a cost to _all_ GCC developers. If a por
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #46 from David Edelsohn ---
I understand the issues with Golang and have been raising the issue internally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #45 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #42)
> See e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/#toc-RTL-Representation
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #44 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #41)
> SPE mostly is a separate architecture that happens to share many of the
> basic mnemonics with PowerPC. Maintaining the SPE port was a burden to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #43 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
>
> --- Comment #40 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz fu-berlin.de> ---
> Is th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #42 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/#toc-RTL-Representation
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Machine-Desc.html#Machine-Desc
https://kristerw.blogspot.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #41 from David Edelsohn ---
SPE mostly is a separate architecture that happens to share many of the basic
mnemonics with PowerPC. Maintaining the SPE port was a burden to the
Power/PowerPC maintainers. As discussed in the other thread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #40 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Is there documentation like this for gcc?
> https://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html
Would be very useful for people wanting to help with the old backends.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #39 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #37)
> Not sure about IBM, I as a GCC developer and RM have major problem with the
> amount of dead code in the port, because anyone who makes changes to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #38 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #35)
> Do you IBM guys have a hidden agenda to bury the left-overs of Freescale? ;-)
I thought Jakub works for RedHat?
> The SPE port has already been mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not sure about IBM, I as a GCC developer and RM have major problem with the
amount of dead code in the port, because anyone who makes changes to the
middle-end that need backend changes will waste time adjus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #36 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #33)
> Yes, but the port split was done in May last year, and nothing substantial
> happened since then. Port maintainance is not about promises, but abou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #34
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #32)
> Andrew said he is still working on it. That is not the same as saying the
> promise is not going to be kept. gcc isn't a trivial project after all a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #32 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #31)
> It would have been announced in gcc-7/changes.html (linked from the
> announcement on gcc-announce@, I do hope you read that?), but instead of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #31 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #30)
> > The announcement of the intent to obsolete the port has been posted already
> > more than a year ago, if you look in the comments in this PR,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #30 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> The rs6000 backend had since the split around 290 commits that didn't touch
> the powerpcspe backend, if we just assume that only 20% of those are
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The port is not actively maintained and contains estimated 75%-80% of dead
code.
The rs6000 backend had since the split around 290 commits that didn't touch the
powerpcspe backend, if we just assume that onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #28 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Just built two weeks ago, natively:
root@atlantis:~> gcc-8 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-8
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-linux-gnuspe/8/lto-wrapper
Target: powerpc-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glaubitz at physik dot
fu-be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 18 08:47:26 2018
New Revision: 259461
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259461&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81084
* config.gcc: Obsolete powerpc*-*-*spe*.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Jenner ---
Sorry for my lack of communication on this. Realistically, it doesn't look like
I'm going to be able to get the powerpcspe port to the appropriate state by the
GCC 8 rc1, so please feel free to deprecate or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We aim to do GCC 8 rc1 in the middle of next week, I'm afraid if powerpcspe is
still in this sorry state by then, then it is better to remove it and re-add
when/if it is in better shape. Or at least declare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another gentle ping. As has been mentioned, powerpcspe also lacks
gcc-8/changes.html entry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Jenner ---
I'm still actively working on it. The patch is close to ready for commit now, I
think - I'm going to try to get it committed by the end of the week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Andrew, a friendly ping on this. The #c13 patch looks like a good progress,
what happened to it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Similarly, config.gcc has:
powerpc*-*-*spe*)
cpu_type=powerpcspe
extra_headers="ppc-asm.h altivec.h spe.h ppu_intrinsics.h paired.h
spu2vmx.h vec_types.h si2vmx.h htmintrin.h htmxlintrin.h"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any further progress? E.g. when you've taken away all the -mcpu= options but
2, why not take away all the powerpcspe-cpus.def entries but the two, masks for
other CPUs, etc. Do those CPUs support Altivec o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Jenner ---
I have committed another small patch to the .opt files:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00247.html
and updated my docs patch per Joseph's feedback:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Jenner ---
I have committed a patch to the .opt files:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00114.html
I have also submitted a patch to the documentation:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00115.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, andrewjenner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
>
> Andrew Jenner changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Andrew Jenner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Andrew Jenner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Jenner ---
Created attachment 43312
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43312&action=edit
Patch in progress so far
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Jenner ---
I have been reading gcc-patches and keeping a list of the rs6000 changes that I
will need to port. I will go through the svn log for rs6000 as well to make
sure I haven't missed anything. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Even rs6000 changes related to IEEE long double support are potentially
relevant to powerpcspe (not anything related to binary128 in VSX,
obviously, but more generic IEEE long double chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That would be appreciated. Besides killing the non-SPE relevant stuff in
powerpcspe, I think a review of the rs6000 changes from the last year that
might be relevant to powerpcspe is desirable too. While c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Jenner ---
Sorry for the lack of comment from me - I only just saw this bug (I was not
receiving email from bugzilla but hopefully I have fixed this now).
I am part-way through the cleanup. I will commit what I have so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any progress here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P1
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On December 12, 2017 12:51:35 AM GMT+01:00, law at redhat dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
>
>Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrewjenner at gcc dot
gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
port is also unmaintained (no MAINTAINERS entry)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
66 matches
Mail list logo