https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81828
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- >As 48-core ARM chips have just been announced by Qualcomm, I have been using a 48 core ThunderX which is an ARMv8-a for almost 3 years now :) So don't bring this up really. Cilk+ is deprecated as nobody is using it and Intel seems like added it to GCC and then disappeared. See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg01209.html > I didn't want to look into cilkplus too deeply as to why we have different > types, because (a) I don't care (b) we're probably going to deprecate > Cilk Plus, no? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg01211.html > And the more important question is if Intel is willing to maintain Cilk+ in > GCC, or if we should deprecate it (and, if the latter, if already in GCC7 > deprecate, remove in GCC8, or deprecate in GCC8, remove in GCC9). > There are various Cilk+ related PRs around on which nothing has been done > for many months. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg01220.html > As discussed on IRC, we will probably deprecate CilkPlus for GCC7 and remove > it > for GCC8 unless someone is interested in maintaining it. So...committing as > is. And then nobody from Intel stepped up.
