On Tue, 2024-11-26 at 13:52 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 11/26/24 11:43 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Jeff Law: > > > > > On 11/26/24 9:06 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > OK for trunk? (caveat: not properly tested) > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > PR translation/90160 > > > > * config/csky/csky.cc (csky_configure_build_target): > > > > Use %qs when > > > > referring to cpu and arch names. > > > > (csky_option_override): Likewise. > > > > > It may be a dead port at this point. I'm not sure anyone is > > > doing > > > anything with csky. > > > > We are still building glibc with it. 8-> > It's still in my tester as well, so I build glibc for it daily. > > > > > Last test results have been submitted for glibc 2.34 (three years > > ago). > > Last potentially non-generic change was from Alibaba (which matches > > the GCC maintainers' employer on record). Would it make sense to > > reach > > out and ask about port removal at this point? > IIRC it's Alibaba's chip. I'd heard through the grapevine that > they're > more focused on RISC-V these days. Xianmiao is definitely active on > the RISC-V side, hopefully he'll chime in (now on cc).
FWIW I've pushed the wording patch to trunk as r15-5703- ge2db825f857da1.
