From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: whitequark Subject: Re: [OpenRISC] Removing architectures without upstream gcc support Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:24:25 +0000 Message-ID: <9dda26a68c1174933e456227efb6ae01@whitequark.org> References: <155284c9-7fd4-2f2c-0216-1c43622f88c3@philipp-wagner.com> <57602e7e-a9c6-3480-7e99-7d274e836ed6@philipp-wagner.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <57602e7e-a9c6-3480-7e99-7d274e836ed6@philipp-wagner.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Philipp Wagner Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jonas Bonn , Chen Liqin , "open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." , Richard Kuo , David Howells , openrisc@lists.librecores.org, Lennox Wu , James Hogan , Guan Xuetao , "open list:METAG ARCHITECTURE" , Guenter Roeck , Al Viro List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 2018-02-26 12:10, Philipp Wagner wrote: > Actually the LLVM port of or1k isn't upstream either. CCing > whitequark, who might know more about the (non-)plans of getting the > backend upstream. I also don't know of anyone having tried to build > the openrisc kernel with LLVM, would certainly be an interesting thing > to try. I keep the OR1K backend up-to-date and generally in good shape (e.g. I've got exception handling work and added all missing instructions to the internal assembler) but upstreaming it is many weeks of work that I personally cannot spare, and the LLVM community requests that those who upstream backends maintain buildbots running hardware tests indefinitely, which I personally cannot afford. -- whitequark From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uruz.whitequark.org ([188.166.218.19]:32916 "EHLO uruz.whitequark.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752097AbeBZPmB (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:42:01 -0500 Subject: Re: [OpenRISC] Removing architectures without upstream gcc support MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:24:25 +0000 From: whitequark In-Reply-To: <57602e7e-a9c6-3480-7e99-7d274e836ed6@philipp-wagner.com> References: <155284c9-7fd4-2f2c-0216-1c43622f88c3@philipp-wagner.com> <57602e7e-a9c6-3480-7e99-7d274e836ed6@philipp-wagner.com> Message-ID: <9dda26a68c1174933e456227efb6ae01@whitequark.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Philipp Wagner Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jonas Bonn , Chen Liqin , "open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." , Richard Kuo , David Howells , openrisc@lists.librecores.org, Lennox Wu , James Hogan , Guan Xuetao , "open list:METAG ARCHITECTURE" , Guenter Roeck , Al Viro Message-ID: <20180226152425.VkGwxuegQrbNPu_TVn9-4pXhf3dwTSk01EpOKJ2luyo@z> On 2018-02-26 12:10, Philipp Wagner wrote: > Actually the LLVM port of or1k isn't upstream either. CCing > whitequark, who might know more about the (non-)plans of getting the > backend upstream. I also don't know of anyone having tried to build > the openrisc kernel with LLVM, would certainly be an interesting thing > to try. I keep the OR1K backend up-to-date and generally in good shape (e.g. I've got exception handling work and added all missing instructions to the internal assembler) but upstreaming it is many weeks of work that I personally cannot spare, and the LLVM community requests that those who upstream backends maintain buildbots running hardware tests indefinitely, which I personally cannot afford. -- whitequark