Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:41:47 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] gcc: support for barcelona Message-ID: <FCD093B4-9056-4250-83E4-3FE60FF49699@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <51A3BCF4.1010008@FreeBSD.org> References: <51A38CBD.6000702@FreeBSD.org> <E9DC99EF-F2E9-4A5F-8370-36DA25DE2C89@felyko.com> <4BD4D414-8281-4127-A520-565CF28FF5E5@FreeBSD.org> <51A3BCF4.1010008@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. >>>>=20 >>>> Unfortunately I had to revert rapidly such support as it broke = building >>>> some C++ ports even when it was not being used. >>>>=20 >>>> jkim@ did some cleanup of the support and the patch has been >>>> gathering rust here: >>>>=20 >>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/reworked-r236962-3.diff >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> 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 ;-). >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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? Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FCD093B4-9056-4250-83E4-3FE60FF49699>