From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 119595 invoked by alias); 24 May 2017 16:19:41 -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 119581 invoked by uid 89); 24 May 2017 16:19:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: foss.arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.101.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 May 2017 16:19:40 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9792B; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e105689-lin.cambridge.arm.com (e105689-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.207.32]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 019033F578; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM/AArch64] drop aarch32 support for falkor/qdf24xx To: Jim Wilson References: <6ebb24ef-0912-cf5f-74a4-b4acd372dbf4@arm.com> Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" Message-ID: <8a59f4fc-5450-ff42-aabd-bb32da42cd89@arm.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:30:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg01890.txt.bz2 On 24/05/17 17:03, Jim Wilson wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) > wrote: >> On 24/05/17 15:18, Jim Wilson wrote: >>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) >>> 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.