lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support
From
Date
On 02/23/2018 02:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 04:45:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> While building the cross-toolchains, I noticed that overall, we can build almost
>>> all linux target architectures with upstream binutils and gcc these days,
>>> however there are still some exceptions, and I'd like to find out if anyone
>>> has objections to removing the ones that do not have upstream support.
>>> This are the four architectures I found:
>>>
>>> * score (s+core, sunplus core) was a proprietary RISC architecture
>>> made by sunplus. It is unclear if they still ship any products based on
>>> this architecture, all they list is either ARM Cortex-A9 or an unspecified
>>> RISC core that could be any of arm, mips, nds32, arc, xtensa or
>>> something completely different. The two maintainers have both left the
>>> company many years ago and have not contributed any patches in
>>> at least five years. There was an upstream gcc port, which was marked
>>> 'obsolete' in 2013 and got removed in gcc-5.0.
>>> I conclude that this is dead in Linux and can be removed
>>>
>>> * unicore32 was a research project at Peking University with a SoC
>>> based on the Intel PXA design. No gcc source code has ever been
>>> published, the only toolchain available is a set of binaries that include
>>> a gcc-4.4 compiler. The project page at
>>> http://mprc.pku.edu.cn/~guanxuetao/linux/ has a TODO list that has
>>> not been modified since 2011. The maintainer still Acks patches
>>> and has last sent a pull request in 2014 and last sent a patch of
>>> his own in 2012 when the project appears to have stalled.
>>> I would suggest removing this one.
>>>
>>
>> The above two would be primary removal targets for me; they are all
>> but impossible to support given the toolchain limitations. Meta
>> would have been another one, but James is already taking care of it.
>
> Ok. Have you had any success building arch/hexagon with clang?
>

I have not tried. It is a pain having to use different toolchains for different
kernel versions, and I only do it if I absolutely have to. I use "hexagon-linux-gcc
(Sourcery CodeBench Lite 2012.03-66) 4.6.1".

Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-23 15:33    [W:0.069 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site