Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Date | Fri, 23 Feb 2018 06:32:57 -0800 |
| |
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
| |