* Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch @ 2003-04-15 22:07 Zack Weinberg 2003-04-16 1:15 ` Kumar Gala 2003-04-16 14:14 ` Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch Gerald Pfeifer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-04-15 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc I've just created a branch called gcc-3_3-e500-branch. On this branch I am going to backport the PowerPC/E500 work, done mostly by Aldy Hernandez, from the mainline sources to 3.3. I don't have any plans to merge this branch back onto 3.3, but that might make sense in the future. The branch will be regularly updated from the 3.3 branch. Commits require explicit approval from me. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-15 22:07 Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch Zack Weinberg @ 2003-04-16 1:15 ` Kumar Gala 2003-04-16 1:16 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-04-16 14:14 ` Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch Gerald Pfeifer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Kumar Gala @ 2003-04-16 1:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: gcc Why dont you have plans to merge this branch back into 3.3? It would seem useful to make sure that the e500 support in 3.3 was correct, and a number of Aldy's patches that have been made to the mainline do that. - kumar On Tuesday, April 15, 2003, at 04:43 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > I've just created a branch called gcc-3_3-e500-branch. On this branch > I am going to backport the PowerPC/E500 work, done mostly by Aldy > Hernandez, from the mainline sources to 3.3. I don't have any plans > to merge this branch back onto 3.3, but that might make sense in the > future. > > The branch will be regularly updated from the 3.3 branch. Commits > require explicit approval from me. > > zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-16 1:15 ` Kumar Gala @ 2003-04-16 1:16 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-04-16 9:25 ` Kumar Gala 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-04-16 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: gcc Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@motorola.com> writes: > Why dont you have plans to merge this branch back into 3.3? It would > seem useful to make sure that the e500 support in 3.3 was correct, and > a number of Aldy's patches that have been made to the mainline do that. It is not appropriate to do it now, when we are trying to stabilize the branch for the 3.3.0 release. It may well be a good thing to do for 3.3.1, but that decision I leave to the PowerPC port maintainers. I'm certainly not going to object to a merge. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-16 1:16 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-04-16 9:25 ` Kumar Gala 2003-04-16 16:09 ` Aldy Hernandez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Kumar Gala @ 2003-04-16 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: gcc, Aldy Hernandez Zack, I could not ask for any more. Aldy, Have you pushed all the ABI fixes for e500 to the mainline yet? It would be good to make sure what Zach back ports is actually e500 ABI 1.0 compatible. - kumar On Tuesday, April 15, 2003, at 07:06 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@motorola.com> writes: > >> Why dont you have plans to merge this branch back into 3.3? It would >> seem useful to make sure that the e500 support in 3.3 was correct, and >> a number of Aldy's patches that have been made to the mainline do >> that. > > It is not appropriate to do it now, when we are trying to stabilize > the branch for the 3.3.0 release. It may well be a good thing to do > for 3.3.1, but that decision I leave to the PowerPC port maintainers. > I'm certainly not going to object to a merge. > > zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-16 9:25 ` Kumar Gala @ 2003-04-16 16:09 ` Aldy Hernandez 2003-04-16 16:15 ` Kumar Gala 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Aldy Hernandez @ 2003-04-16 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: Zack Weinberg, gcc > Have you pushed all the ABI fixes for e500 to the mainline yet? It > would be good to make sure what Zach back ports is actually e500 ABI > 1.0 compatible. > All my patches are in mainline. There are still more to come, but everything I've done is out on mainline. Aldy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-16 16:09 ` Aldy Hernandez @ 2003-04-16 16:15 ` Kumar Gala 2003-04-16 16:50 ` Aldy Hernandez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Kumar Gala @ 2003-04-16 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aldy Hernandez; +Cc: Zack Weinberg, gcc What is left to submit / get working in the mainline w/respect to the ABI? - kumar On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 10:33 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> Have you pushed all the ABI fixes for e500 to the mainline yet? It >> would be good to make sure what Zach back ports is actually e500 ABI >> 1.0 compatible. >> > > All my patches are in mainline. There are still more to come, but > everything I've done is out on mainline. > > Aldy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-16 16:15 ` Kumar Gala @ 2003-04-16 16:50 ` Aldy Hernandez 2003-04-16 22:19 ` Jan Hubicka 2003-04-17 4:54 ` Zack Weinberg 0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Aldy Hernandez @ 2003-04-16 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: Zack Weinberg, gcc, Jan Hubicka On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 11:53 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: > What is left to submit / get working in the mainline w/respect to the > ABI? > varargs are broken because of GCC infrastructure problems for subregs of simd types on hard registers. I suggested an approach, but Jan Hubicka had another idea which he hasn't implemented. I may kludge it on the e500 branch, since there doesn't seem to be an agreement on how to fix GCC. long doubles are broken on purpose on mainline. The ABI specifies 128 bit long doubles, but I have left them as 64 bits since there are no emulation bits for powerpc-eabi*. vector types going on varargs, in the named section of the arguments, are supposed to be split. They currently are not. Everything above I'm "working on". Finally, there are a mess of multilibs to be built by default. I have a patch, but I'm still testing the multilibs before I commit to mainline. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-16 16:50 ` Aldy Hernandez @ 2003-04-16 22:19 ` Jan Hubicka 2003-04-17 4:54 ` Zack Weinberg 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Jan Hubicka @ 2003-04-16 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aldy Hernandez; +Cc: Kumar Gala, Zack Weinberg, gcc, Jan Hubicka > > On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 11:53 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > >What is left to submit / get working in the mainline w/respect to the > >ABI? > > > > varargs are broken because of GCC infrastructure problems for subregs > of simd types on hard registers. I suggested an approach, but Jan > Hubicka had another idea which he hasn't implemented. I may kludge it > on the e500 branch, since there doesn't seem to be an agreement on how > to fix GCC. We should proceed somewhat on the SIMD stuff. I probably won't be able to work on it in next 3 weeks, so it is bit long since I am burned alive in my TODO list (bugfixes, merging of patches for 3.3 and so on) and I am leaving for study in Barcelona. In case for Motorola bits implementing the named patterns to extract/set the specific field of vector (not the RTL construct as I believe we don't need it because we do have VEC_SELECT/VEC_MERGE/VEC_DUPLICATE), please go forward for it. I beleive there will be needed anyway even when we will need some more complex machinery to fit all the weird side corners of SSE instruction set. Sorry if I delayed you by being overcomplicating the issue. Honza > > long doubles are broken on purpose on mainline. The ABI specifies 128 > bit long doubles, but I have left them as 64 bits since there are no > emulation bits for powerpc-eabi*. > > vector types going on varargs, in the named section of the arguments, > are supposed to be split. They currently are not. > > Everything above I'm "working on". > > Finally, there are a mess of multilibs to be built by default. I have > a patch, but I'm still testing the multilibs before I commit to > mainline. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-16 16:50 ` Aldy Hernandez 2003-04-16 22:19 ` Jan Hubicka @ 2003-04-17 4:54 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-04-17 16:46 ` Aldy Hernandez 2003-05-15 4:10 ` Kumar Gala 1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-04-17 4:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aldy Hernandez; +Cc: Kumar Gala, gcc, Jan Hubicka Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> writes: > varargs are broken because of GCC infrastructure problems for subregs > of simd types on hard registers. I suggested an approach, but Jan > Hubicka had another idea which he hasn't implemented. I may kludge it > on the e500 branch, since there doesn't seem to be an agreement on how > to fix GCC. > > long doubles are broken on purpose on mainline. The ABI specifies 128 > bit long doubles, but I have left them as 64 bits since there are no > emulation bits for powerpc-eabi*. > > vector types going on varargs, in the named section of the arguments, > are supposed to be split. They currently are not. > > Everything above I'm "working on". > > Finally, there are a mess of multilibs to be built by default. I have > a patch, but I'm still testing the multilibs before I commit to > mainline. Can I impose upon you to test and commit your future E500 patches both on the mainline and on the new branch? (Once I've got the backport done.) That way people using the branch automatically stay up to date. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-17 4:54 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-04-17 16:46 ` Aldy Hernandez 2003-04-17 17:28 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-05-15 4:10 ` Kumar Gala 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Aldy Hernandez @ 2003-04-17 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: Kumar Gala, gcc, Jan Hubicka > Can I impose upon you to test and commit your future E500 patches both > on the mainline and on the new branch? (Once I've got the backport > done.) That way people using the branch automatically stay up to date. /me whines /me cries /me complains Ok, no problem ;-). Let me know when you've backported everything. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-17 16:46 ` Aldy Hernandez @ 2003-04-17 17:28 ` Zack Weinberg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-04-17 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aldy Hernandez; +Cc: Kumar Gala, gcc, Jan Hubicka Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> writes: >> Can I impose upon you to test and commit your future E500 patches both >> on the mainline and on the new branch? (Once I've got the backport >> done.) That way people using the branch automatically stay up to date. > > /me whines > /me cries > /me complains > > Ok, no problem ;-). Let me know when you've backported everything. Thanks, I really appreciate this. I should be done by the end of the week. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-17 4:54 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-04-17 16:46 ` Aldy Hernandez @ 2003-05-15 4:10 ` Kumar Gala 2003-05-15 4:38 ` Zack Weinberg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Kumar Gala @ 2003-05-15 4:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: Aldy Hernandez, gcc Zach, Aldy What's the state of the gcc-3_3-e500-branch? Is it feasible to merge it back into 3.3 so that 3.3.1 has fully working e500 support? thanks - kumar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-05-15 4:10 ` Kumar Gala @ 2003-05-15 4:38 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-05-15 14:41 ` Kumar Gala 2003-05-15 14:45 ` altivec testsuite Kumar Gala 0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-05-15 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: Aldy Hernandez, gcc Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@motorola.com> writes: > Zach, Aldy > > What's the state of the gcc-3_3-e500-branch? It works, as far as I know. I need to do another merge from the 3.3 release branch now that GCC 3.3.0 has officially been shipped. I'm also considering applying David Edelsohn's patches for the 440 chip; it's not strictly relevant to the e500, but my clients want it. > Is it feasible to merge it back into 3.3 so that 3.3.1 has fully > working e500 support? That's a question you should be asking the PowerPC port maintainers and the release manager, not either of us. I would like to see it happen; however, some of the changes I had to backport could be seen as risky, such as the 3.4 genautomata.c (although not any of the rest of the scheduler). zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-05-15 4:38 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-05-15 14:41 ` Kumar Gala 2003-05-15 15:43 ` Mark Mitchell 2003-05-15 14:45 ` altivec testsuite Kumar Gala 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Kumar Gala @ 2003-05-15 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg, mark, geoffk, dje; +Cc: gcc, Aldy Hernandez Zach, Thanks for the relpy. Mark, Geoff, David What is your feeling of allowing this branch to be merged back into the 3.3 line? I know we have a number of customers that this would greatly facilitate. Thanks - kumar On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 11:38 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@motorola.com> writes: > >> Zach, Aldy >> >> What's the state of the gcc-3_3-e500-branch? > > It works, as far as I know. I need to do another merge from the 3.3 > release branch now that GCC 3.3.0 has officially been shipped. I'm > also considering applying David Edelsohn's patches for the 440 chip; > it's not strictly relevant to the e500, but my clients want it. > >> Is it feasible to merge it back into 3.3 so that 3.3.1 has fully >> working e500 support? > > That's a question you should be asking the PowerPC port maintainers > and the release manager, not either of us. I would like to see it > happen; however, some of the changes I had to backport could be seen > as risky, such as the 3.4 genautomata.c (although not any of the rest > of the scheduler). > > zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-05-15 14:41 ` Kumar Gala @ 2003-05-15 15:43 ` Mark Mitchell 2003-05-15 20:14 ` Geoff Keating 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2003-05-15 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: Zack Weinberg, geoffk, dje, gcc, Aldy Hernandez On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 07:41, Kumar Gala wrote: > Zach, > > Thanks for the relpy. > > Mark, Geoff, David > > What is your feeling of allowing this branch to be merged back into the > 3.3 line? I feel that there are two many changes in this branch to permit its being merged back into GCC 3.3.1. The dot-releases are supposed to contain fixes for critical defects only. We have occasionally allowed new architectures to be merged in on release branches, but only when they were completely separate and therefore could not impact existing code. Yours, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC mark@codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-05-15 15:43 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2003-05-15 20:14 ` Geoff Keating 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Geoff Keating @ 2003-05-15 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: kumar.gala, zack, dje, gcc, aldyh > X-Original-To: geoffk@foam.wonderslug.com > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> > Cc: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>, geoffk@geoffk.org, > dje@watson.ibm.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> > Date: 15 May 2003 08:42:59 -0700 > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2003 15:43:04.0424 (UTC) FILETIME=[AC77A680:01C31AF8] > > On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 07:41, Kumar Gala wrote: > > Zach, > > > > Thanks for the relpy. > > > > Mark, Geoff, David > > > > What is your feeling of allowing this branch to be merged back into the > > 3.3 line? > > I feel that there are two many changes in this branch to permit its > being merged back into GCC 3.3.1. The dot-releases are supposed to > contain fixes for critical defects only. We have occasionally allowed > new architectures to be merged in on release branches, but only when > they were completely separate and therefore could not impact existing > code. I'm inclined to agree; the risks of integrating it into the 3.3 release outweigh the relativly small cost of simply keeping it on the gcc-3_3-e500-branch during the GCC 3.3 life cycle. -- - Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* altivec testsuite 2003-05-15 4:38 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-05-15 14:41 ` Kumar Gala @ 2003-05-15 14:45 ` Kumar Gala 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Kumar Gala @ 2003-05-15 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: Aldy Hernandez, gcc Zach, I believe you where interested in the Altivec testsuite we had produced a number of years ago. We have recently assigned over the copyright of the testsuite to the FSF. I know Aldy was willing at one time to work on taking the tests and integration of them into the dejagnu frame work. - kumar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-15 22:07 Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch Zack Weinberg 2003-04-16 1:15 ` Kumar Gala @ 2003-04-16 14:14 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2003-04-16 17:16 ` Zack Weinberg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2003-04-16 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: gcc, Laurent Guerby On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I've just created a branch called gcc-3_3-e500-branch. On this branch > I am going to backport the PowerPC/E500 work, done mostly by Aldy > Hernandez, from the mainline sources to 3.3. I don't have any plans > to merge this branch back onto 3.3, but that might make sense in the > future. > > The branch will be regularly updated from the 3.3 branch. Commits > require explicit approval from me. Would you mind documenting this in cvs.html? Gerald PS: Laurent, I just realize that there we have a couple of (mostly) dead branches which nobody submitted information about; what do you think about removing them? PPS: I also had an idea on how to make this more structured: Could I convince you to gather all those branches that have been merged to mainline in a separate subsubsection at the end of that subsection? ;-) -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch 2003-04-16 14:14 ` Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch Gerald Pfeifer @ 2003-04-16 17:16 ` Zack Weinberg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-04-16 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: gcc, Laurent Guerby Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes: > On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> I've just created a branch called gcc-3_3-e500-branch. On this branch >> I am going to backport the PowerPC/E500 work, done mostly by Aldy >> Hernandez, from the mainline sources to 3.3. I don't have any plans >> to merge this branch back onto 3.3, but that might make sense in the >> future. >> >> The branch will be regularly updated from the 3.3 branch. Commits >> require explicit approval from me. > > Would you mind documenting this in cvs.html? Sure. zw =================================================================== Index: cvs.html --- cvs.html 25 Mar 2003 00:23:04 -0000 1.100 +++ cvs.html 16 Apr 2003 16:50:19 -0000 @@ -268,6 +268,11 @@ particular releases or snapshots or the <dt>x86-64-branch</dt> <dd></dd> + <dt>gcc-3_3-e500-branch</dt> + <dd>This branch is for backporting the PowerPC/E500 back end to GCC + 3.3. See <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-04/msg00733.html" + >this message</a> for details.</dd> + <dt>cp-parser-branch</dt> <dd>This branch has been merged into the mainline.</dd> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-15 20:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-04-15 22:07 Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch Zack Weinberg 2003-04-16 1:15 ` Kumar Gala 2003-04-16 1:16 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-04-16 9:25 ` Kumar Gala 2003-04-16 16:09 ` Aldy Hernandez 2003-04-16 16:15 ` Kumar Gala 2003-04-16 16:50 ` Aldy Hernandez 2003-04-16 22:19 ` Jan Hubicka 2003-04-17 4:54 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-04-17 16:46 ` Aldy Hernandez 2003-04-17 17:28 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-05-15 4:10 ` Kumar Gala 2003-05-15 4:38 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-05-15 14:41 ` Kumar Gala 2003-05-15 15:43 ` Mark Mitchell 2003-05-15 20:14 ` Geoff Keating 2003-05-15 14:45 ` altivec testsuite Kumar Gala 2003-04-16 14:14 ` Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch Gerald Pfeifer 2003-04-16 17:16 ` Zack Weinberg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).