On 8/12/25 2:56 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
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.
I did get a response perhaps a year or so ago indicating they still care.
Jeff
