Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GCC 11 Compiler Could End Up Removing Support For The Motorola m68k, Other Old CPUs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GCC 11 Compiler Could End Up Removing Support For The Motorola m68k, Other Old CPUs

    Phoronix: GCC 11 Compiler Could End Up Removing Support For The Motorola m68k, Other Old CPUs

    Deprecated for the upcoming GCC 10 compiler release and set for removal in GCC 11 one year later is the CC0 representation code that is being used for handle condition codes in GCC back-ends. That in turn means a number of older CPU targets will be removed in GCC 11 should they not receive some development attention to transition them to the modern MODE_CC representation...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...1-Dropping-CC0

  • #2
    Did they just deprecate the AVR backend used by popular hobbyist boards?
    Last edited by GrayShade; 10-30-2019, 07:53 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      So they are saying that support for compiling on the Atari ST, Amiga and first gen Macs will be removed? This is a outrage!!!!!!1!


      /S
      Last edited by M@GOid; 10-30-2019, 09:51 AM. Reason: whoooooosh

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by M@GOid View Post
        So they are saying that support for compiling on the Atari ST, Amiga and first gen Macs will be removed? This is a outrage!!!!!!1!
        If nobody maintains that code path to keep it up to modern standards, not doing so would be silly. If nobody steps up to keep m68k support code up to current requirements, they should remove it, as it's nothing but legacy baggage. Feel free to use an older version, fork it, or try to ensure m68k is properly supported.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post

          If nobody maintains that code path to keep it up to modern standards, not doing so would be silly. If nobody steps up to keep m68k support code up to current requirements, they should remove it, as it's nothing but legacy baggage. Feel free to use an older version, fork it, or try to ensure m68k is properly supported.
          you don't do sarcasm, do you

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GrayShade View Post
            Did they just deprecate the AVR backend used by popular hobbyist boards?
            I guess GCC doesn't want to be used. They've been removing support for a lot of stuff recently. First Cell SPU, now AVR, and next m68k.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rmoog View Post
              I guess GCC doesn't want to be used. They've been removing support for a lot of stuff recently. First Cell SPU, now AVR, and next m68k.
              TBH, nobody is going to upgrade to GCC 11 for their XBox 360 or whatever. Most embedded projects use known-good toolchains from ages ago. Arduino has what, GCC 5.4? On SPARC platforms, GCC 3.4 is still going strong.

              Comment


              • #8
                I bet that Microchip will step up and update that AVR backend as the MCU manufacturer. Just give them time to react. Unless they want to drop AVRs (they did drop a lot of MCUs when acquiring Atmel). Or the community will do it themselves.

                Comment


                • #9
                  From what I understand they [possible] to drop support for those architectures not because that they would like that, but because lack of contributors or something
                  m68k it's more historically [still] present in GCC

                  From Debian on Motorola 680x0
                  Status

                  The Debian m68k port was first officially released with Debian 2.0 (hamm) and was an official port until Debian 4.0 (etch). There's now an effort to revive this port.

                  Currently, the Debian/m68k port supports Atari, Amiga, VMEbus, and some Macintosh systems.



                  Using the latest gcc 4.6/4.7.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by M@GOid View Post
                    /S
                    I think the "sarcasm tag" is one of the few exception were the revival of the 90s "Blink element" would be justified.
                    Quite a few people seem to have missed it.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X