On 7/9/20 12:13 PM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
On July 9, 2020 3:43:19 PM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 9:07 AM Matthias Klose <d...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
On 7/9/20 1:58 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:03 AM Matthias Klose <d...@ubuntu.com>
wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/criteria.html lists the little endian
platform first
as a primary target, however it's not mentioned for GCC 9 and GCC
10. Just an
omission?
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00854.html
suggests that
the little endian platform should be mentioned, and maybe the big
endian
platform should be dropped?
Jakub suggested to fix that for GCC 9 and GCC 10, and get a
consensus for GCC 11.
Why are you so insistent to drop big endian? No. Please leave
this alone.
No, I don't leave this alone. The little endian target is dropped in
GCC 9 and
GCC 10. Is this really what you intended to do?
No, it's not dropped. Some people are being pedantic about the name,
which is why Bill added {,le}. powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu means
everything. If you want to add {,le} back, that's fine. But there
always is some variant omitted, and that doesn't mean it is ignored.
The more that one over-specifies and enumerates some variants, the
more that it implies the other variants intentionally are ignored.
I would appreciate that we would separate the discussion about
explicit reference to {,le} from the discussion about dropping the big
endian platform.
I think for primary platforms it is important to be as specific as possible
since certain regressions are supposed to block a release. That's less of an
issue for secondary platforms but it's still a valid concern there as well for
build issues.
Sorry, I've been on vacation and am a little late to this discussion. I
obviously agree with specifying both, since I did that for GCC 8 (and
assumed it would be propagated forward). I had forgotten I did this
when I subsequently noticed for GCC 9 that it was only
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. I brought it up then and, IIRC, was told
by the maintainers that "LE is implied as well, don't worry about it."
It looks like thoughts on this have changed, so certainly I would agree
with putting "{,le}" back at this time.
I agree with David that BE isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so
anything that implies it should be a secondary platform is wrong. We
continue to support it and test it.
Matthias, if you want to post a patch for GCC 9 and GCC 10, I'm sure
that would be accepted (though I do not have the power to pre-approve
it). Or I can put it on my list for later in the summer when my life
settles down. Your choice.
Bill
Richard.
Thanks, David
