[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#155002: SuperH supports

YAEGASHI Takeshi wrote:
 > > Is sh a new or a revived port? Is there a reason not go with
 > > gcc-3.1/gcc-3.2?
 > > 
 > > No Fortran, no Java?
 > Sorry I'm not certain about the current status of GNU toolchain.  Does
 > the ABI change between GCC 3.0 and 3.1 or later?
 > So, it might be true we could take any version of GCC as default for
 > SuperH if it's stable enough.  Do you have any comments on that, Niibe?

Please use 3.0.4 for a while, before we migrate to 3.2.
(Note that 3.1 and 3.2 is same line, just change the name.)

GCC 3.0.4 is stable compiler for GNU/Linux on SuperH.  For 3.0, we
have maintained local patch.  For 3.2, we're working hard to merge our
work into mainline, mostly merged, but there remains a little part.

(Before GNU/Linux support, GCC had SuperH support for embedded system
since the day of SH-1.  We've port Linux to SuperH (for sh3, sh3eb,
sh4, sh4eb), and active development has been started to support GCC
for GNU/Linux on SuperH.)

In 3.0.4, we have no Fortran because of nasty reload bugs of SuperH,
we have no Java because of lack of runtime support.  Those two are
already have been worked done nicely for 3.1.

Forthcoming 3.2 has ABI change for C++, it would become big step for
us.  Although our test coverage status is good for 3.1 (it seems no
regression against 3.0.4 for C) (and we have new things Java and
Fortran) , but C++ ABI change is major change.

Reply to: