Hi, On Thu, 2025-05-15 at 17:41 +0100, Andrew Stubbs 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? > > 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? >
SH5/SH64 was actually part of the original SH port, not a separate standalone port. It made the port more complex and convoluted, but probably made sense since the it was backwards compatible with the original SH ISA (it was like ARM Thumb -- jump to select between classic SH ISA and new SH5 ISA, from what I remember). Best regards, Oleg Endo
