On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:46:27PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > For AVR -- an other port affected by cc0 removal -- there is a > LLVM/Clang port. It' not as mature as GCC's avr port, but what counts > in the end is support / responsiveness from the community and an > openness for the requirements of deeply embedded targets.
And you think you find that less in GCC? Huh. > I had gcc > patches rejected by global maintainers (just a no-op hook for other > targets) because it appeared they didn't even understand what the patch > is about (and kept proposing alternative "solutions" that totally missed > the point). Please point me to that. In private mail, if you prefer. > And code quality is deteriorating from version to version. Whatever you > do in the backend to mitigate it, there's always global changes that > shreds any improvements... I don't see that. Things that aren't maintained and have no good tripwire tests for code quality can (and will) degrade naturally, of course. But maintained targets do not normally have a hard time keeping up. > Btw, does GCC support clobbering registers in branches (or > cbranch<mode>4 for that matter)? This requirement would come up when > transitioning avr to cc_mode because cbranches would live post reload. Of course. You cannot have *reloads* on branches, that is all. Segher
