On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 05/07/2012 11:33 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> GCC is well into stage 1 for GCC 4.8, but I haven't seen any proposals >> for targets to be deprecated. I have one I would like to put on the >> list, so here's something to start a discussion with: >> >> Deprecate all support for 32-bits HP-PA. This includes HP-UX10, and >> PA-7000 and older. > > No objections from me. PA1.x machines are ancient. However, before making > the decision, I think making sure your facts are correct would be wise.
I always try to do so, but for something as ancient as PA1.x, it's not so easy :-) >> 3. The PA-7000 series only run HP-UX 10 or earlier, so support for >> HP-7000 and older is pointless without HP-UX10 support. > > Does the PA linux port run on the older PA machines or did they restrict > themselves to PA2.0 and newer? I certainly recall them working on 32bit > ports at one time. No, I think HP-PA linux also supports PA1.1. However, it's not clear to me which linux distributions actually still support HP-PA at all. Debian was probably the most wide-spread deployed hppa-linux, but Debian dropped hppa support in 6.0 (squeeze). I've looked at http://wiki.parisc-linux.org/Distributions to see if they have any listed hardware restrictions, but they appear to be none. >> 4. 32-bits HP-PA uses the SOM binary object format, i.e. it is a >> non-ELF target (64-bits HP-PA is ELF). > > Well, there was a PA ELF 32 bit target, but I suspect that code has long > since died. I think 32-bits hppa-linux is ELF. >> Removing support for anything older than PA-8000 results in a >> considerable cleanup for the PA architecture: ~3300 lines out of >> ~23000, estimated by cleaning all "!TARGET_64BIT" and "TARGET_PA_11" >> patterns in pa.md and pa.c, and most of the cleanups to remove support >> for SOM objects. > > IIRC TARGET_PA_11 was implicitly on when compiling 2.0 support. Again, > worth checking since it may affect how much code you think you can clean up. I didn't find that. These are all the TARGET_PA_11 tests I removed for my experiment: - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT" - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT" - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT" - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT" - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT" - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT" - if (TARGET_PA_11 && !TARGET_DISABLE_FPREGS && !TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT) - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_DISABLE_FPREGS && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT" - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_DISABLE_FPREGS && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT && !TARGET_64BIT" - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_DISABLE_FPREGS && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT && TARGET_64BIT" - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT - "TARGET_PA_11 && ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT Ciao! Steven
