On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 6:43 PM Andrew Stubbs <a...@baylibre.com> wrote: > > Dear GCC Maintainers and Steering Committee, > > I'm currently doing a feasibility study and effort estimate for > upstreaming the existing ARCv3 out-of-tree port [1]. > > Question: Is there likely to be any objection to adding a new "arc64" > port in addition to the existing "arc" port?
I don't see any strong reason not to do this, assuming 'arc' is 32bit only and 'arc64' is a 64bit CPU. But I'd say the arc port maintainer should weight in (CCed). Technically the SC has to accept a new port I think. Richard. > At this point, I would like to check that the general approach is likely > to be accepted at the end of the project. Or, at least not rejected for > this most fundamental of reasons. > > The ARCv3 port has been written as a new backend because it is not just > a simple evolution of the ARC architecture and starting afresh made more > sense to the developers at the time. I'm aware that there are some > precedents for this (sh64, ia64, aarch64), so I think it's probably > fine, right? > > If necessary, I can do a closer analysis of the two ports and figure out > how to unify them, but of course that's going to take longer and cost more. > > Any advice would be appreciated. > > Thanks very much, > > Andrew > > > [1] https://github.com/foss-for-synopsys-dwc-arc-processors/gcc/tree/arc64
