From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id D73FE3858C2F; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 23:02:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D73FE3858C2F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677020538;
	bh=tQ9Lj+R4WlDvYmOYNgDclTYgN6kb2+F94u0uvzQb+nw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=d8S6SMtjaTFQdylHBpYrV4sLZgqNxLpyvM4lL4CTazbaIcYv21Q4nhHjXdYjnJ+a4
	 tMS+E55ba4cnZfaNzsC2szCSyBf8hW9c5olqwTZlisJsZFU4iaic5BrtqL5f67QZv2
	 7EdXQn+OwrzilJiigEHfydumMM6qmImT14bVgOKs=
From: "pali at kernel dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/108853] Add new -mcpu=e500 alias for -mcpu=8540
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 23:02:18 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pali at kernel dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108853-4-3dPHngxqnP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108853-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108853-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108853

--- Comment #3 from Pali Roh=C3=A1r <pali at kernel dot org> ---
I'm still using processors with e500 cores with recent Linux kernel versions
and I know also other people who also still using them.

Note that NXP still supports some QorIQ processors which have integrated e5=
00
cores. So it is not truth that they are no longer supported by FreeScale/NX=
P.

I know that e500 support was mostly removed out of GCC, but something is st=
ill
there.

And due to this removal, LLVM and clang recently gained some usable e500v2
implementation. I was told that it was heavily tested on FreeBSD with deskt=
op
applications.

Also musl libc in last year got e500 support.

So, no, e500 cpu core is not dead and people still care about it.=