Re:"Is it dead yet?"

[" " <jshammond at my-Deja dot com>]

>For these ports that have clearly not compiled
> in a long time, is it
>really worth keeping them alive?  I'm not 
>suggesting we drop anything
>we've seen any activity in, but I've watched 
>these lists for a long time
>and don't recall a single problem or success 
>report on, say, clipper-*,
>tahoe-*, pyr-*, or 1750-* in years.  If the 
>code won't compile and
>nobody has even noticed, it sounds like dead 
>wood.

>A quick check on some of those targets diffing 
>against the initial "1.1"
>version when EGCS was created shows nothing 
>but bulk search and replace
>kinds of fixes.

>The GDB project has instated a plan to try to >trim some of these out of
>the code.   Does GCC have a similar plan?  
>Does it need one?

Within the last year I used the 1750 files
to create a compiler.  The company I work
for is building an updated version of the
1750 and we needed tools for it.

From the start I knew that the 1750 wasn't
actively supported and 1750 expertise was
not likely to be available.  However, I did
have the source code and was able to take
advantage of the gcc expertise that is
out there to get a working tool.

The fact that there were existing 1750 files 
saved me a great deal of effort.  Creating
them from scratch would have been much
harder than just modifying them, epecially
since I started with no knowledge of .md 
files and the like.

I would prefer that these files be kept 
around.  It is possible that the next
processor we are asked to build will be
based on the tahoe-* and the existing 
files are certainly better than nothing.

Jeff


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.