[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9dda26a68c1174933e456227efb6ae01@whitequark.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:24:25 +0000
From: whitequark <whitequark@...tequark.org>
To: Philipp Wagner <lists@...lipp-wagner.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Chen Liqin <liqin.linux@...il.com>,
"open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, Lennox Wu <lennox.wu@...il.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
"open list:METAG ARCHITECTURE" <linux-metag@...r.kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [OpenRISC] Removing architectures without upstream gcc support
On 2018-02-26 12:10, Philipp Wagner wrote:
> Actually the LLVM port of or1k isn't upstream either. CCing
> whitequark, who might know more about the (non-)plans of getting the
> backend upstream. I also don't know of anyone having tried to build
> the openrisc kernel with LLVM, would certainly be an interesting thing
> to try.
I keep the OR1K backend up-to-date and generally in good shape (e.g.
I've got exception handling work and added all missing instructions
to the internal assembler) but upstreaming it is many weeks of work
that I personally cannot spare, and the LLVM community requests that
those who upstream backends maintain buildbots running hardware tests
indefinitely, which I personally cannot afford.
--
whitequark
Powered by blists - more mailing lists