> Hi!
>> 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? It worked, but of course had its own issues: take PR79438 as one example (but perhaps the problem there had not stemmed from RA at all), and I would undoubtedly find more if I had enough time and knew they would be fixed. I never enabled LRA for our production code, though. So what I've been originally trying to say was that, while switching to LRA by default would expose more problems and maybe wrong-code issues, removing reload as a fallback would put extra pressure on finding and fixing them. If the switch happened when SPE was just a part of rs6000 backend, some of the necessary work would be likely offset by people (and corporations!) behind the PowerPC (sorry, Segher), but reviving powerpcspe now means that all of that has to be done by relatively small group of maintainers (or even by a single person) of a quite niche target. There was also some serious work during migration to LRA by default that resulted in filing and then presumably fixing PR69847 (and others like that one), and, I believe, nothing like that were possible for powerpcspe. >> I've been able to identify the following ones: > > Wow, thank you, that was most of the work already :-) Strangely, I failed to find any PR for e200, so maybe some unnoticed ones are still lying around. PR19490 probably needs some consideration. Is there something left in rs6000 backend that could be done prior to closing this one? rs6000 backend still has some remnants of support of 854[08], namely, instruction costs and some machine descriptions; is it on purpose? The idea is that Power ISA on these cores is still supported, right? >> 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. I think I'll close the second group myself, as they constitute almost half of the total amount. Arseny > Thanks, > > > Segher
