On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 06:12:37PM +0200, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> FWIW, at AdaCore we're using e500v2-wrs-vxworks for our VxWorks
> toolchain for SPE.
config.sub translates that to powerpc-wrs-vxworksspe so that works.
Segher
FWIW, at AdaCore we're using e500v2-wrs-vxworks for our VxWorks
toolchain for SPE.
Arno
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 10:55:53AM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >powerpc-*-rtemsspe* would be OK.
> >
> >powerpc-*-eabisimspe* is pretty ugly though.
>
>
> After I sent this, I saw in another response that powerpcspe*-*-*
> was proposed. Is that clearer?
Yes, it does not have part of the archit
On 5/1/2017 10:47 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 5/1/2017 5:48 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
We also still have to agree on the target triples for the new port.
If you have any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
It seems fairly obvious that the
On 5/1/2017 5:48 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
We also still have to agree on the target triples for the new port.
If you have any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
It seems fairly obvious that the powerpc-*-eabispe* and
powerpc*-*-linux*spe*
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:30:59AM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > My current patches have powerpc*-*-*spe* for the powerpcspe port.
> > Maybe it should also allow powerpcspe-*-*? If people are willing
> > to change the target triple they use.
>
>
On Mon, 1 May 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> My current patches have powerpc*-*-*spe* for the powerpcspe port.
> Maybe it should also allow powerpcspe-*-*? If people are willing
> to change the target triple they use.
In that case, either config.sub or config.gcc could handle the mapping.
>
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 10:48:05AM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > We also still have to agree on the target triples for the new port.
> > If you have any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
>
> It seems fairly obvious that the powerpc-*-eabi
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> We also still have to agree on the target triples for the new port.
> If you have any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
It seems fairly obvious that the powerpc-*-eabispe* and
powerpc*-*-linux*spe* triples should continue to work while bein
On 04/28/2017 05:15 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:18:55AM +0100, Andrew Jenner wrote:
On 13/03/2017 18:01, Andrew Jenner wrote:
I volunteer to be the point of contact for the SPE port.
Over here at CodeSourcery/Mentor Embedded, we have a strong interest i
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:18:55AM +0100, Andrew Jenner wrote:
> On 13/03/2017 18:01, Andrew Jenner wrote:
> >I volunteer to be the point of contact for the SPE port.
> >
> >Over here at CodeSourcery/Mentor Embedded, we have a strong interest in
> >SPE *not* being deprecated (we activel
On 13/03/2017 18:01, Andrew Jenner wrote:
I volunteer to be the point of contact for the SPE port.
Over here at CodeSourcery/Mentor Embedded, we have a strong interest in
SPE *not* being deprecated (we actively ship toolchain products with SPE
multilibs, and have customers for which these are im
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Andrew Jenner wrote:
> > I am assuming SPE and VLE do not support AltiVec or 64-bit PowerPC,
> > please correct me if that is incorrect. Also, is "normal" floating
> > point supported at all?
>
> My understanding is that SPE is only present in the e500v1, e500v2 and
> e200z[
On 16/03/17 22:16, Andrew Jenner wrote:
On 16/03/2017 21:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
The e200z3 upwards have SPE units. None of them have classic FP. So it
would make most sense for the e200/VLE support to be part of the SPE
backend rather than the classic PowerPC backend.
Great to hear! An
On 16/03/2017 21:11, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
The e200z3 upwards have SPE units. None of them have classic FP. So it
would make most sense for the e200/VLE support to be part of the SPE
backend rather than the classic PowerPC backend.
Great to hear! And all e300 are purely "classic"?
That's
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 08:38:37PM +, Andrew Jenner wrote:
> >>Are you proposing to take on the task of actually splitting it yourself?
> >>If so, that would make me a lot happier about it.
> >
> >Yes, I can do the mechanics. But I cannot do most of the testing.
>
> That's fine (and what I ex
Hi Segher,
On 16/03/2017 19:24, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
e500mc (like e5500, e6500) are just PowerPC (and they use the usual ABIs),
so those should stay on the "rs6000 side".
Agreed.
Are you proposing to take on the task of actually splitting it yourself?
If so, that would make me a lot hap
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:43:20PM +, Andrew Jenner wrote:
> On 15/03/2017 14:26, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >I do not think VLE can get in, not in its current shape at least.
>
> That's unfortunate. Disregarding the SPE splitting plan for a moment,
> what do you think would need
On 15/03/2017 14:26, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
I do not think VLE can get in, not in its current shape at least.
That's unfortunate. Disregarding the SPE splitting plan for a moment,
what do you think would need to be done to get it into shape? I had
thought we were almost there with the patc
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 03/15/2017 08:26 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
>> Since SPE and VLE only share the part of the rs6000 port that doesn't
>> change at all (except for a bug fix once or twice a year), and everything
>> else needs special cases all over
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:12:53AM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> >Do you (AdaCore and Mentor) think splitting the port is a good idea?
>
> I can't speak on behalf of Mentor, and Andrew is the target expert here,
> but we currently do ship all of SPE, VLE, and AltiVec multilibs in the
> same p
On 03/15/2017 08:26 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Since SPE and VLE only share the part of the rs6000 port that doesn't
change at all (except for a bug fix once or twice a year), and everything
else needs special cases all over the place, it seems to me it would be
best for everyone if we split
> On Mar 15, 2017, at 15:26 , Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> I do not think VLE can get in, not in its current shape at least. VLE
> is very unlike PowerPC in many ways so it comes at a very big cost to
> the port (maintenance and otherwise -- maintenance is what I care about
> most).
>
> Sinc
Hi all,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:01:31AM +0100, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 2017, at 19:01 , Andrew Jenner wrote:
> > I volunteer to be the point of contact for the SPE port.
> >
> > Over here at CodeSourcery/Mentor Embedded, we have a strong interest in SPE
> > *not* being deprecat
Hello Andrew,
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 19:01 , Andrew Jenner wrote:
>
> I volunteer to be the point of contact for the SPE port.
>
> Over here at CodeSourcery/Mentor Embedded, we have a strong interest in SPE
> *not* being deprecated (we actively ship toolchain products with SPE
> multilibs, and
On 21/02/2017 16:14, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
On Feb 17, 2017, at 01:10 , David Edelsohn wrote:
This is not a new issue. The maintainer did not suddenly resign last
week. There have been numerous efforts to reach out to the SPE
community
> > There are three main areas that require attention:
> >
> > 1) Regular builds of the SPE configuration and regular GCC testsuite
> > runs that are reported to the gcc-testsuite mailing list.
> >
> > 2) Timely reports of any regressions.
> >
> > 3) An active GCC developer who is the point of c
> On 21 Feb 2017, at 17:14, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> Hi, Olivier
>
> There are three main areas that require attention:
>
> 1) Regular builds of the SPE configuration and regular GCC testsuite
> runs that are reported to the gcc-testsuite mailing list.
>
> 2) Timely reports of any regression
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>> On Feb 17, 2017, at 01:10 , David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>> This is not a new issue. The maintainer did not suddenly resign last
>> week. There have been numerous efforts to reach out to the SPE
>> community for over a *decad
Hi David,
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 01:10 , David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> This is not a new issue. The maintainer did not suddenly resign last
> week. There have been numerous efforts to reach out to the SPE
> community for over a *decade*, cajoling them to step up with
> maintenance for the port. I
On 02/17/2017 04:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
I'd like us to be more agressive in deprecating/removing of unmaintained
parts of GCC. It's not only target/host support but also things like
unmaintained
language extensions (or frontends) as well as optimization passes.
If you want a compiler th
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> I'd like us to be more agressive in deprecating/removing of unmaintained
> parts of GCC. It's not only target/host support but also things like
> unmaintained
> language extensions (or frontends) as well as optimization passes.
So... what
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:10 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Sandra Loosemore
> wrote:
>> On 02/16/2017 03:19 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 02:49:47PM -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
> I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obso
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 02/16/2017 03:19 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 02:49:47PM -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header fil
On 02/16/2017 03:19 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 02:49:47PM -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
-mfloat-gprs= command-line option, a
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 02:49:47PM -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> >I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
> >the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
> >-mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
> >
> >No o
On 02/13/2017 08:07 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi all,
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
-mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
No one has properly test
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:25:04PM +1100, Patrick Oppenlander wrote:
> >It's not true though; we still support all those cores, just not the
> >VLE extension (we never have), and I propose GCC 7 will drop the SPE
> >extension as well -- not all other support we have for those cores.
> >They will ha
On 15/02/17 01:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
With the Qualcomm takeover of Freescale/NXP I guess the PowerPC has no
future in this area and they will move to ARM for the processor cores.
That is my understanding as well, yes.
Our reps have suggested that the opposite may well be the case: It
On 15/02/17 01:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
It is also used in many PPC based microcontrollers, which are used in
the automotive industry and other places where you need highly reliable
and robust but powerful microcontrollers. However, gcc support for
these has traditionally been poor - there
Hi Segher,
> On Feb 14, 2017, at 04:07 , Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
> the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
> -mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SP
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 03:26:09PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >>>I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
> >>>the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
> >>>-mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
> >>>
On 14/02/17 15:09, David Brown wrote:
On 14/02/17 12:55, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Segher,
On 14/02/17 04:07, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi all,
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
-m
On 14/02/17 12:55, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Segher,
>
> On 14/02/17 04:07, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
>> the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
>> -mfloat-gprs= command-li
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
> the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
> -mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
>
> No
Hello Segher,
On 14/02/17 04:07, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi all,
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
-mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
No one has pro
On 02/13/2017 08:07 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi all,
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
-mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
No one has properly test
Hi all,
I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obsolete in GCC 7. This includes
the spe.h installed header file, all the __builtin_spe* intrinsics, the
-mfloat-gprs= command-line option, and the support for the SPE ABIs.
No one has properly tested these targets in a long time (the latest
testresu
48 matches
Mail list logo
