On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 12:54 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/26/24 11:43 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Jeff Law: > > > >> On 11/26/24 9:06 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > >>> OK for trunk? (caveat: not properly tested) > >>> gcc/ChangeLog: > >>> PR translation/90160 > >>> * config/csky/csky.cc (csky_configure_build_target): Use %qs when > >>> referring to cpu and arch names. > >>> (csky_option_override): Likewise. > > > >> It may be a dead port at this point. I'm not sure anyone is doing > >> anything with csky. > > > > We are still building glibc with it. 8-> > It's still in my tester as well, so I build glibc for it daily. > > > > > Last test results have been submitted for glibc 2.34 (three years ago). > > Last potentially non-generic change was from Alibaba (which matches > > the GCC maintainers' employer on record). Would it make sense to reach > > out and ask about port removal at this point? > IIRC it's Alibaba's chip. I'd heard through the grapevine that they're > more focused on RISC-V these days. Xianmiao is definitely active on > the RISC-V side, hopefully he'll chime in (now on cc).
I see nobody responded if csky is a dead port or not. I am trying to get some ports obsolete for GCC 16 so we can remove code that is no longer supported in GCC 17. Thanks, Andrew > > > Jeff >
