This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Re: New Port for RISC-V v3

From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt dot com>

To: jakub at redhat dot com

Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org

Cc: Andrew Waterman <andrew at sifive dot com>

Cc: kito dot cheng at gmail dot com

Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:18:12 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: New Port for RISC-V v3

Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none

On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:21:36 PST (-0800), jakub@redhat.com wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 10:38:18AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> There have been a handful of changes since we submitted our v2 port: >> >> * Some documentation formatting fixes. >> >> * A documentation typo fix. >> >> * Some changes to wwwdocs, which have been mailed to the list. >> >> * The port now builds via contrib/config-list.mk. I worked around the >> warnings in other parts of the codebase with some "#pragma GCC diagnostic >> ignored" when I couldn't fix them properly, so the patches aren't useful, >> but I fixed the warnings in our port reasonably. I can try to fix all these >> reasonably, but it might take a while. >> >> As far as I know there are currently no outstanding problems with this port, so >> I think it's at the point where we should talk about actually getting the code >> in. We have been accepted as maintainers of the port, and I have write access >> to the repositories, so I think we're all good to go on that end. Of course if >> there's any remaining comments I'd love to fix them, but it seems the comments >> on our v2 were somewhat minimal. >> >> What's the procedure for moving forward with the port? >> >> Thanks to everyone who helped with reviewing the port! >> >> [PATCH 1/6] RISC-V Port: gcc/config/riscv/riscv.c >> [PATCH 2/6] RISC-V Port: gcc >> [PATCH 3/6] RISC-V Port: libgcc >> [PATCH 4/6] RISC-V Port: libatomic >> [PATCH 5/6] RISC-V Port: gcc/testsuite >> [PATCH 6/6] RISC-V Port: contrib > > Richard in another mail said he is ok with the patchset, Sandra said some > notes on the documentation patch and have seen just 5 of these 6 patches > posted in v3 (the 2/6 patch is missing). > From RM POV as long as it doesn't affect other targets it is ok for trunk, > but please don't delay it too much (i.e. resolve Sandra's comments, post the > missing patch, then check it in). OK, great! I think we're all set: * Here's the responses to the documentation comments <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00459.html>, <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00460.html>. * I believe the patch was silently dropped because it was over the size limits, so I gzip'd the patch and sent it to the mailing list here <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00462.html>. * We don't touch anything in any of the other ports. If you give the OK, then I can commit this as soon as I figure out git-svn (which I'm looking at now). Thanks!