From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98406 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2016 15:45:37 -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 98391 invoked by uid 89); 13 Sep 2016 15:45:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.158.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:45:35 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u8DFi75U095587 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 11:45:33 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com (e32.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.150]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 25e2pf5xt8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 11:45:33 -0400 Received: from localhost by e32.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:45:32 -0600 Received: from d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.178) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:45:30 -0600 X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: bergner@vnet.ibm.com Received: from b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.16]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720723E4005E; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:45:17 -0600 (MDT) Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.233]) by b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u8DFiVMu17170708; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:45:16 -0700 Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7585A13603A; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:45:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from otta.local (unknown [9.80.214.126]) by b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D88136048; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:45:15 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Put a TARGET_LRA_P into every target To: Andrew Pinski References: <20160913110349.GA18438@gate.crashing.org> Cc: Segher Boessenkool , Bernd Schmidt , GCC Patches From: Peter Bergner Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; 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-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16091315-0004-0000-0000-0000105A1D47 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00005754; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000185; SDB=6.00757286; UDB=6.00359076; IPR=6.00530657; BA=6.00004715; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00012661; XFM=3.00000011; UTC=2016-09-13 15:45:31 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16091315-0005-0000-0000-000078D6238F Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-09-13_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609020000 definitions=main-1609130230 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00744.txt.bz2 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. Peter