[CFT] gcc: support for barcelona

[Pedro Giffuni]

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 at felyko.com> wrote:
>>>> On 27 May 2013, at 09:41, Pedro Giffuni <pfg at 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 at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"