Hi, I think using a different arc64 port is better as the new ARCv3 comes with some new innovations which are not in the "classical" arc port. Moreover, the classical arc is implementing arcv1, arcv2 and all kinds of variations in between. Adding a new 64bit architecture will just complicate the existing backend.
Cheers, Claudiu On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 2:44 PM Andrew Stubbs <a...@baylibre.com> wrote: > > On 15/05/2025 17:55, Richard Biener wrote: > > 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). > > Claudiu is one of the original authors of the new port, but he no longer > works for Synopsys so could not upstream it himself. > > > Technically the SC has to accept a new port I think. > > That would be reassuring, if true. > > Obviously, getting the quality level up to standard, and getting the > legal requirements in order, are a required part of the project. As is > finding someone to act as Maintainer. > > Thanks for the reply. > > Andrew
