> On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Oleg Endo <oleg.e...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 19:04 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>
>> LRA is easier to work with than old reload, and that makes it better
>> maintainable.
>>
>> Making LRA handle everything reload did is work, and someone needs to
>> do it.
>>
>> LRA probably needs a few more target hooks (a _few_) to guide its
>> decisions.
>
> Like Georg-Johann mentioned before, LRA has been targeted mainly for
> mainstream ISAs. And actually it's a pretty reasonable choice. Again,
> I don't think that "one RA to rule them all" is a scalable approach.
> But that's just my opinion.
I think G-J said "... LRA focusses just comfortable, orthogonal targets" which
is not quite the same thing.
I'm a bit curious about that, since x86 is hardly "comfortable orthogonal".
But if LRA is targeted only at some of the ISA styles that are out in the
world, which ones are they, and why the limitation?
One of GCC's great strength is its support for many ISAs. Not all to the same
level of excellence, but there are many, and adding more is easy at least for
an initial basic level of support. When this is needed, GCC is the place to go.
I'd like to work on moving one of the remaining CC0 targets to the new way, but
if the reality is that GCC is trying to be "mainstream only" then that may not
be a good way for me to spend my time.
paul
