Re: [PATCH, ARM/AArch64] drop aarch32 support for falkor/qdf24xx

["Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>]

On 24/05/17 17:03, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 24/05/17 15:18, Jim Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>>> <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> OK.  does this need to go in the gcc-8 changes file?
>>>
>>> Falkor hasn't shipped yet.  I'm dropping features that only existed in
>>> preproduction NDA hardware, so there isn't anything end user visible,
>>> and hence I don't think that it needs to be in the release notes.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough, so what about a minimal back-port to GCC-7 that just
>> disables the CPU name for aarch32?
> 
> Not sure how to do that.  If I remove the arm-cpus.in entry, then 5
> files get automatically regenerated.  That leaves us with a few minor
> inconsistencies in specs handling and multilibs which are harmless but
> we may as well fix anyways.  The only part of the patch that is
> optional if the part which moves the qdf24xx_extra_costs array from
> the arm dir to the aarch64 dir.  So the minimal patch ends up being
> half the size of the original patch, changing 9 of the original 11
> files, which isn't very minimal.
> 
> Another option might be to just remove the documentation and leave the
> code in, i.e. only apply the doc/invoke.texi patch.  That would be a
> small and safe patch.
> 
> Jim
> 

Certainly we should remove it from the documentation.  That might be the
best idea.

I don't really regard the size of the changes to the auto-generated code
as being relevant - if we put the generated code directly in the build
directory and treated it like we do the output from gen*.c, then those
changes would never be even noticed.

R.