https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (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 and > that work can take some time. Yes, but the port split was done in May last year, and nothing substantial happened since then. Port maintainance is not about promises, but about doing the work. If he does the work soon, the port can be de-obsoleted in GCC9, otherwise it will be removed, which doesn't mean it can't be added at some point later. Of course, the later it will be done, the harder it will be. > > m68k needs some serious work, too, in the not far future (if the cc0 removal > > finally goes through -- that has been over ten years now). > > Yes, I am aware of that. But there are enough people interested in such work > so I think we will be able get around doing that at some point. Nobody did the work in the last 15+ years for m68k, it doesn't seem likely that all of sudden it will happen. There have been numerous posts about what to do to get rid of cc0, e.g. in 2005 and several other years. See https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html for details, a healthy port doesn't have c (cc0), p (not using define_peephole2), has a (uses LRA). We can't maintain old reload, or cc0 support indefinitely. > > 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 port is > > not maintained it has to be removed. > > So, again my question is: What exactly is the with the powerpcspe target at > the moment and why does upstream claim the port is broken when it apparently > works for us in Debian? Am I missing something? Have you read all the threads mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-04/msg00102.html and all the above comments? All the details are in there.
