Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:40:59 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: amd64@FreeBSD.org, toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@felyko.com> Subject: Re: [CFT] gcc: support for barcelona Message-ID: <521EEFA1-E116-41F5-B618-238E7AA092A8@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <51A3B8AB.5080808@FreeBSD.org> References: <51A38CBD.6000702@FreeBSD.org> <E9DC99EF-F2E9-4A5F-8370-36DA25DE2C89@felyko.com> <51A3B8AB.5080808@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 27, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > On 27.05.2013 14:12, Rui Paulo wrote: >> On 27 May 2013, at 09:41, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> wrote: >>=20 >>> Hello; >>>=20 >>> Almost a year ago I tried to bring in the support for AMD's = barcelona >>> chipset into our gcc. This actually filled a lot of holes in that = were left >>> when similar intel support was brought in. >>>=20 >>> Unfortunately I had to revert rapidly such support as it broke = building >>> some C++ ports even when it was not being used. >>>=20 >>> jkim@ did some cleanup of the support and the patch has been >>> gathering rust here: >>>=20 >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/reworked-r236962-3.diff >>>=20 >>> The patch still applies cleanly and there is a good chance it will = work >>> since there have been other fixes merged since the last time. >>>=20 >>> I did some basic testing and so far it works for me but I don't have >>> the specific chipset. Additional testing would be welcome. >>=20 >> I have to question the general direction of this work. We switched to = Clang as the default compiler for i386/amd64 some months ago and now = you're working on improving our base GCC especially for amd64? I don't = really understand how useful this is. It doesn't strike me as a good = idea to see people working on things that will eventually be replaced / = removed. >=20 > I have absolutely no intention to give gcc a second air: it's dead > and I am anxious to see it axed from -current (soon?). That's not going to happen soon. While it works OK for amd64, there's = still many bugs in its ARM support and even more in its MIPS support. = There's 0 chance it will be gone in 10... > This said, > there are still many FreeBSD users trapped with the base gcc for > at least as long as 9.x is alive. >=20 > If you look at the ChangeLog.gcc43 in the above patch, you will > notice I am just completing some code that was incompletely > merged in previous revisions. >=20 > The basic work was done almost a year ago, and I have no hurry > to merge it but given that the effort was done already it would > seem a pity to just throw it away. >=20 > Of course I may be completely wrong here. I see some value in adding this stuff. While we have made clang the = default, it still isn't fully vetted by surviving a release with it = enabled. the fallback plan will continue to be gcc. While it would ALSO be good to cleanup the tree so it can compile = cleanly with 4.7 or 4.8, this effort won't stand in the way of that. = Excluding it seems more like a political or emotional one than a = practical one. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?521EEFA1-E116-41F5-B618-238E7AA092A8>