From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6036 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2009 17:31:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 5988 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Mar 2009 17:31:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com (HELO g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com) (15.192.0.46) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:31:08 +0000 Received: from smtp1.cup.hp.com (hpda.cup.hp.com [16.89.217.160]) by g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD02303F5; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:31:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [16.89.92.85] (hpsje.cup.hp.com [16.89.92.85]) by smtp1.cup.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2BE4F0B49; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4 From: Steve Ellcey Reply-To: sje@cup.hp.com To: Steven Bosscher Cc: GCC Patches , gcc mailing list , Jim Wilson , "H.J. Lu" , Gerald Pfeifer In-Reply-To: <571f6b510903191624l4e5fa9b4q87cdc1fd14b87ff8@mail.gmail.com> References: <571f6b510903150916qa6ec3a4o6a85c09698ee0bb@mail.gmail.com> <571f6b510903191624l4e5fa9b4q87cdc1fd14b87ff8@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:55:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1237829308.17117.32.camel@hpsje.cup.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00737.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 00:24 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > >> I can't find any test results in gcc-testresults reported with > >> -mtune=itanium1 [1]. > > > > ...especially if theye do not even contribute test results or > > feedback when things are broken (as in this case). Deprecating > > Itanium 1 with GCC 4.4 sounds very reasonable. > > Very well. Like so? > I'll propose something for gcc-4.4/changes.html too, after this is > approved in some form. > > Ciao! > Steven Sorry for not chiming in sooner but I have been on Vacation. I think depreciating Itanium1 tuning for 4.4 and removing it in 4.5 is reasonable. Code generated and tuned for Itanium2 should run fine on Itanium1 (Merced). It won't be scheduled optimally of course, but it should run correctly. > > > > * config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64_handle_option): Inform user that Itanium1 > support is deprecated if the -mtune value is set to an Itanium1 > variant. > > Index: config/ia64/ia64.c > =================================================================== > --- config/ia64/ia64.c (revision 144970) > +++ config/ia64/ia64.c (working copy) > @@ -5212,6 +5212,8 @@ fix_range (const char *const_str) > static bool > ia64_handle_option (size_t code, const char *arg, int value) > { > + static bool warned_merced_deprecated = false; > + > switch (code) > { > case OPT_mfixed_range_: > @@ -5245,6 +5247,13 @@ ia64_handle_option (size_t code, const char *arg, > if (!strcmp (arg, processor_alias_table[i].name)) > { > ia64_tune = processor_alias_table[i].processor; > + if (ia64_tune == PROCESSOR_ITANIUM > + && ! warned_merced_deprecated) > + { > + inform ("value %<%s%> for -mtune= switch is deprecated", arg); > + inform ("GCC 4.4 is the last release with Itanium1 support"); > + warned_merced_deprecated = true; > + } > break; > } > if (i == pta_size) I will approve this patch, but it should say "Itanium1 tuning support" or something like that. The code will run on Itanium1, just not optimally. Steve Ellcey sje@cup.hp.com