On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:03 PM, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Will <william.swashbuck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> James Lemke <jwlemke <at> codesourcery.com> writes: >> >>> I have completed the binutils submission for VLE. >>> I am working on the gcc submission. The test results are looking good >>> now. Patches will be posted very soon. >> >> Do you have any update on the work on VLE-support? >> >> Thanks for any feedback you can provide! > > The problem is the changes are very invasive and significantly > complicate the common parts of the rs6000 port. A lot of people may > use applications built for PPC VLE on embedded systems using Freescale > parts, but there are few developers who need to build and use the > compiler. Most, if not all, of those developers will receive a > pre-built SDK. > > I am happy to work with Jim to merge some of the VLE patches into GCC > to reduce divergence and simplify maintenance, but merging in all > support is too disruptive to the general powerpc port. I have not > heard a lot of advantage or need for most developers to be able to > build GCC for PPC VLE from the FSF sources, other than a few, vocal > users. Merging in some of the less disruptive pieces and obtaining > patches or an SDK from Freescale does not seem overly burdensome for > the few people who need that support.
Maybe it's also possible to refactor some of the powerpc port to make adding VLE support less invasive or disruptive (disclaimer: I have not looked at the patches). Richard. > Thanks, David
