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 requir
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz schrieb:
On 10/31/19 10:00 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
I didn't follow the lists for some time... At least neither v9 or v10
release notes caveats mention such deprecation, neither is there
respective PRs for the cc0 targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09
On 10/31/19 10:00 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>> I didn't follow the lists for some time... At least neither v9 or v10
>>> release notes caveats mention such deprecation, neither is there
>>> respective PRs for the cc0 targets.
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01256.html
>>
>>
Peter Bergner schrieb:
On 10/30/19 2:31 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Hi, have the cc0 backends been deprecated?
I didn't follow the lists for some time... At least neither v9 or v10
release notes caveats mention such deprecation, neither is there
respective PRs for the cc0 targets.
https://gc
On 10/30/19 2:31 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Hi, have the cc0 backends been deprecated?
>
> I didn't follow the lists for some time... At least neither v9 or v10
> release notes caveats mention such deprecation, neither is there
> respective PRs for the cc0 targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz schrieb:
Hello!
For anyone who isn't aware of it yet, there is an ongoing BountySource campaign
for gcc PR/91851 [1] which seeks to convert the m68k backend to MODE_CC so that
it can be kept in gcc versions beyond version 11.
Hi, have the cc0 backends been deprecated?
