From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 63877 invoked by alias); 1 May 2017 15:56:01 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 63852 invoked by uid 89); 1 May 2017 15:56:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=joel, Joel, rtems, powerpc-*-rtemsspe* X-HELO: OARmail.OARCORP.com Received: from oarmail.oarcorp.com (HELO OARmail.OARCORP.com) (67.63.146.244) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 May 2017 15:55:59 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.152] (192.168.1.152) by OARmail.OARCORP.com (192.168.2.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.389.2; Mon, 1 May 2017 10:55:54 -0500 Subject: Re: PowerPC SPE maintainership (was Re: Obsolete powerpc*-*-*spe*) To: Joseph Myers , Segher Boessenkool References: <20170214030703.GS21840@gate.crashing.org> <58A61E7B.4060903@codesourcery.com> <20170216221937.GB21840@gate.crashing.org> <58A63B91.1040102@codesourcery.com> <452E2837-FC8A-4DA2-A2B9-F58151841F58@adacore.com> <45cf27b1-2e27-460c-cb32-3be93f16b6d2@codesourcery.com> <7b2eb145-f07a-bced-9ff4-941aa12521d1@codesourcery.com> <20170428231544.GF19687@gate.crashing.org> CC: Andrew Jenner , David Edelsohn , GCC Development , Olivier Hainque , Sandra Loosemore , Arnaud Charlet , Joel Brobecker From: Joel Sherrill Message-ID: <672bb7fd-e2dd-85a4-ad05-c6cce47b7223@oarcorp.com> Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 15:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 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