From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 86750 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2016 16:07:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 86729 invoked by uid 89); 13 Sep 2016 16:07:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:07:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66427AA0C5; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:07:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-111.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.111]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8DG7sG8022397; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:07:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Put a TARGET_LRA_P into every target To: Peter Bergner , Andrew Pinski References: <20160913110349.GA18438@gate.crashing.org> Cc: Segher Boessenkool , Bernd Schmidt , GCC Patches From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <3698532b-9941-fa70-a60d-e63a06e3cef0@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:08:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00748.txt.bz2 On 09/13/2016 09:45 AM, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 9/13/16 9:26 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Segher Boessenkool >>> And all new ports should use LRA, so it should be the default. >> >> Since nobody else has said anything on this patch besides Bernd, I am >> going to say yes please. This patch in my mind is the right way >> forward. In the same new ports should not be cc0 ports (though I know >> some folks try that every once in a while). > > + 1! > > If we don't make LRA the default, it will be very easy for new ports > to default to reload, since they'll have to actively force usage of > LRA and I can see that point being missed even if we have it documented. > We don't want new ports to find out they need to enable LRA during > their patch submission, since that entails a huge amount of retesting. > It should be LRA from day 1 for them. Right. We want ports to start development using LRA from day 1. The big question in my mind is whether or not we want to make it harder for ports to use reload :-) Jeff