Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 15:07:16 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] gcc: support for barcelona Message-ID: <51A3BCF4.1010008@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4BD4D414-8281-4127-A520-565CF28FF5E5@FreeBSD.org> References: <51A38CBD.6000702@FreeBSD.org> <E9DC99EF-F2E9-4A5F-8370-36DA25DE2C89@felyko.com> <4BD4D414-8281-4127-A520-565CF28FF5E5@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 ;). Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51A3BCF4.1010008>