On 08/08/2018 06:03 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > >> On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:35 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz >> <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >> >> On 08/08/2018 11:27 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >> ... >>> Nor are there plans to trim the target set of gcc down to "current >>> mainstream targets", whatever that might mean. >> >> Well, yes, I just linked one of those gcc targets - the e500 target - earlier >> today. The m68k target in gcc is also constantly under threat because of the >> planned cc0 removal. Both the e500 and the m68k targets in gcc are actively >> used. The m68k target is still very popular despite its age. > > As others have said, you need a maintainer for a target. I don't know what > the story is for the two platforms you mentioned. Maintaining an older not > so technically demanding platform is not all that hard. I took on the pdp11 > target some years ago because I wanted to make sure it stayed alive, and it > still is. For that matter, I recently did the CC0 conversion for it. It's > not that big a job, and probably easier for the m68k. Actually m68k is almost certainly tougher than pdp11, both in terms of size for the mechanical parts and in terms of complexity. We've got a machine description that is 3x larger, multiple condition codes and a whole lot of effort already spent to do redundant tst/cmp elimination on the m68k. Replicating it in the non-cc0 world will be nontrivial.
I'm hoping my son will wrap up the h8 stuff and move on to the m68k. Regardless of m68k state I want to declare all cc0 ports deprecated in gcc-9. A stretch goal is to declare all non-LRA targets as deprecated. Note this is personal opinion and is not an official statement of policy or intent by the GCC project. jeff _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
