Hi! On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 02:58:11AM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: > over the course of two years that had passed since the deprecation of the > powerpcspe backend, and a year and a half since its removal from gcc, I've > still > been speaking out several times against immediate closing of Bugzilla PRs > against that target[1,2]. IIRC, Andrew has been contemplating a revival of the > backend during gcc 9 development cycle, and I was willing to wait for another > full cycle. > > But it is clearly obvious that the powerpcspe backend won't be revived. After > two years of development, rs6000 has diverged too much from the split point, > including LRA adoption.
LRA has been supported by the rs6000 port since 2013 (01b1efaa1439), and made the default (and only!) option in 2017 (7a5cbf29beb2). Ah, the latter was slightly after the split, I see. Did powerpcspe never work with LRA? > There was not much interest in SPE support from the > community even during its last years in gcc, let alone after its > removal. Tellingly, my employer never had spare engineers to allocate to the > subject; instead, we decided to migrate to different, modern and supported, > hardware for our future products. > > Andrew is still listed as powerpcspe maintainer in MAINTAINERS even on the > current master; and if I'm not mistaken, John Paul Adrian has been recently > involved in successful bounty program that resulted in migration of m68k > backend > away from cc0, not to mention his unfailing interest in powerpcspe. Do you > guys > have something to say on the matter? > > Otherwise, I'm proposing to finally close all open PRs filed against > powerpcspe. I have had this on my list of things to do for over a year now, it just never was high enough priority. Thank you for volunteering! > I've been able to identify the following ones: Wow, thank you, that was most of the work already :-) > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19490 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30259 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37759 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37760 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47856 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47977 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49854 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51905 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57872 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71012 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86133 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79438 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79451 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81288 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81628 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82138 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84302 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85121 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85170 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87083 > > PRs from the second group were filed by me, so if there's consensus to close > all > of them, the ones from this second group I can close myself. I don't have the > right permissions to modify PRs reported by someone else, so I'd like to ask a > volunteer to step up and close the ones from the first group. > > WDYT? I can do both, if you want, or just the first group? Your choice. But let's hear other opinions first. Thanks, Segher
