On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:22 PM, <paul.kon...@dell.com> wrote: > >> 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. HI, I can't believe GCC ever tries to be "mainstream only". It's somehow like that because major part of requirements come from popular architectures, and large part of patches are developed/tested on popular architectures. It's a unfortunate/natural result of lacking of developers for non-mainstream. We can make it less "mainstream only" only if we have enough developers for less popular arch. Your work will contribute to this and must be highly appreciated :)
Thanks, bin > > paul >
