Re: PowerPC SPE maintainership (was Re: Obsolete powerpc*-*-*spe*)

[Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>]

On 5/1/2017 10:47 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> On 5/1/2017 5:48 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>
>>> We also still have to agree on the target triples for the new port.
>>> If you have any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
>>
>> It seems fairly obvious that the powerpc-*-eabispe* and
>> powerpc*-*-linux*spe* triples should continue to work while being mapped
>> to the new CPU port.  It's less obvious what triples should be used for
>> SPE versions of other SPE-supporting configurations such as
>> powerpc-*-eabisim*, powerpc-*-rtems*, powerpc-wrs-vxworks*.
>
> powerpc-*-rtemsspe* would be OK.
>
> powerpc-*-eabisimspe* is pretty ugly though.


After I sent this, I saw in another response that powerpcspe*-*-*
was proposed. Is that clearer?

For rtems, we already used versioned triplets. powerpc-rtems4.12
for example. owerpcspe-rtems4.12 seems more correct because spe
is part of the CPU architecture.

Otherwise, would it be powerpc-rtems4.12spe or powerpc-rtemsspe4.12.
Both of those are pretty ugly and confuse the third part.

> It is obvious but if powerpc-*-XXXspe* is the pattern, then the
> spe cases need to be above in all configure switches. I hate to
> mention it but a fair number of odd RTEMS issues turn out to be
> from inadvertent side-effects when cleaning up configure switches.
>
>> Some testcases will be applicable to both ports, some to only one.
>>
>> Maintainers of each port should of course watch the other port for changes
>> that should be carried across, even if we believe, as has been stated in
>> this discussion, that the parts of the code that would be present in both
>> ports are stable and very rarely change.
>>
>
> --joel
>

--joel