Hi, Thanks for the fast response!
So to keep an architecture supported by GCC, we would need to: Three or more times a year preferably either during OR after "stage3" 1. use the SVN version of gcc, 2. patch with an RTEMS patch, 3. use ./contrib/test_summary and pipe the output to a shell. 4. Report the testresults to gcc-patches. Would this be sufficient to maintain support for an architecture? As far as support goes, I rebuild RTEMS quite often, so once I understand how to run the tests I don't mind doing so for the x86 architectures. If running the test script is all that's required, I can do that. We really appreciate the useful and detailed information! Cynthia Rempel On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsep...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 12/14/2012 10:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Robert Dewar <de...@adacore.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 12/14/2012 3:13 PM, Cynthia Rempel wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> RTEMS still supports the i386, and there are many i386 machines still >>>> in use. Deprecating the i386 will negatively impact RTEMS ability to >>>> support the i386. As Steven Bosscher said, the "benefits" are small, >>>> and the impact would be serious for RTEMS i386 users. >>> >>> >>> Since there is a significant maintenance burden for such continued >>> support, I guess a question to ask is whether the RTEMS folks or >>> someone using RTEMS are willing to step in and shoulder this burden. >> >> >> Btw, while I see very sporadical testresults for arm-rtems and older >> results >> for v850 and sparc and powerpc-rtems testresult posting on gcc-testresults > > Correct. These results are side-effects of works from people who currently > are working with these architectures, facing problems or porting RTEMS to > these targets. > > This doesn't mean the other targets aren't used nor non functional, because > RTEMS targets usually only are variants from the corresponding newlib-elf > targets. > > >> no such results exist for i386-rtems in 2012 which means it's current >> status >> is in the dark. > > More or less correct. > > Older ix86-rtems-gcc's are known to work, newer ix86-rtems-gccs are known to > have not yet fully understood problems (Related to soft-float math, i386 and > not using a linux-libc). > > >> If you want a port to be live show that it is live by posting regular >> testresults to gcc-testresults. > > Not all of this world is Linux nor backed by large teams at $$$$ companies > :) We simply do not have the resources do to this. Well, easiest is to, whenever you build a version of GCC and run the testsuite (using a simulator I guess), use ./contrib/test_summary and pipe the output to a shell. That will report the testresults to gcc-patches. Thus, it doesn't have to be a dedicated machine doing automated regular builts and tests. It's enough if you happen to build and test GCC for your arch a few times a year, that you make sure to report the results. Especially nice would be to do that for SVN trunk at the point in time it matters most - during and after stage3 - so that issues can be identified before a new major release happens. Richard. > Ralf >
