Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:05:23 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] gcc: support for barcelona Message-ID: <51A4F1E3.6040605@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <FCD093B4-9056-4250-83E4-3FE60FF49699@bsdimp.com> References: <51A38CBD.6000702@FreeBSD.org> <E9DC99EF-F2E9-4A5F-8370-36DA25DE2C89@felyko.com> <4BD4D414-8281-4127-A520-565CF28FF5E5@FreeBSD.org> <51A3BCF4.1010008@FreeBSD.org> <FCD093B4-9056-4250-83E4-3FE60FF49699@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28.05.2013 12:41, Warner Losh wrote: > On May 27, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >> On 27.05.2013 14:38, Dimitry Andric wrote: >>> On May 27, 2013, at 21:12, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@felyko.com> wrote: >>>> On 27 May 2013, at 09:41, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>>> Almost a year ago I tried to bring in the support for AMD's barcelona >>>>> chipset into our gcc. This actually filled a lot of holes in that were left >>>>> when similar intel support was brought in. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately I had to revert rapidly such support as it broke building >>>>> some C++ ports even when it was not being used. >>>>> >>>>> jkim@ did some cleanup of the support and the patch has been >>>>> gathering rust here: >>>>> >>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/reworked-r236962-3.diff >>>>> >>>>> The patch still applies cleanly and there is a good chance it will work >>>>> since there have been other fixes merged since the last time. >>>>> >>>>> I did some basic testing and so far it works for me but I don't have >>>>> the specific chipset. Additional testing would be welcome. >>>> I have to question the general direction of this work. We switched to Clang as the default compiler for i386/amd64 some months ago and now you're working on improving our base GCC especially for amd64? I don't really understand how useful this is. It doesn't strike me as a good idea to see people working on things that will eventually be replaced / removed. >>> It is probably a better use of time to work on getting the tree to build >>> with an out-of-tree gcc 4.7 or 4.8 instead. Why spend more effort on a >>> completely dead branch of gcc? Newer gcc's have better code generation, >>> support for more modern CPUs, and better diagnostics (including even >>> those controversial carets ;-). >> FWIW, upstream gcc has a bug that affects ctfmerge and they have >> been very slow to fix it. I submitted a bug report and a workaround >> patch for ctfmerge to the Illumos guys but they have been very slow >> to review it as well. >> >> I do agree having out-of-tree compilers is important though; and >> much preferable than carrying two compilers ;). > Is this patch in the ports version of gcc at least? The patch comes from the (now obsolete) gcc43 branch that was still under GPLv2. As part of the natural {e|in}volution of gcc it lives in some form in the later gcc versions. I recall a superset of that patch was handpicked by SUSE for their releases but it still requires more testing. I will be running the patch for a week or so here: building kernel, ports, etc and then we will see. Regards, Pedro. > Warner > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51A4F1E3.6040605>