On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 5:04 AM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:56:09 PDT (-0700), pins...@gmail.com 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. > > Looks like the last Linux PR that was csky-specific was for 6.6, which > was almost two years ago. Guo's still around doing Linux stuff in > general, though, so he might know if anyone's still interested? Hi Palmer,
Thanks for involving me, just as Xianmiao mentioned, we would continue to maintain the csky port. I would also continue the Linux C-SKY port work. -- Best Regards Guo Ren
