Re: Removal of V2 code

[Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>]

> From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 17:56:08 -0800

> >>>>> "Geoff" == Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes:
> 
>     Geoff> The embedded platforms (*-elf, powerpc-eabi*, *-coff) don't
>     Geoff> work yet with V3; I don't believe anyone, certainly not at
>     Geoff> Red Hat, will be able to fix this until next month; we
>     Geoff> don't have time.
> 
> Put simply, I don't think that is an issue for the FSF release.  None
> of these platforms are on primary release criteria list.

I didn't understand this part, and so I couldn't understand much of
the rest of your mail either.

What does the release or the release criteria have to do with it?  I
was objecting to the deletion of libstdc++-v2 from the development
tree, on the grounds that this would make it harder to do development.
I would have no objection to its deletion from the release branch, if
it's not needed for the release.

I don't really care.  I just wanted to try to avoid a possibly
annoying mistake.  If you really think you're doing the right thing,
go ahead.

> I should think that you could find a stock i686-pc-linux-gnu system to
> test platform-independent changes on. :-) And for most chips (MIPS,
> PowerPC, etc.) I bet you have non-embedded alternatives to test
> back-end changes on.  There may be rare chips for which this is not
> possible, but there is likely either no C++ support for those chips at
> all in the FSF tree, or there is a non-embedded target for which you
> simply do not have access to appropriate hardware.  In that case, I'm
> sure that either someone will provide you access to the hardware, test
> your patch themselves, or that you can go ahead and check it in, and
> let the people with the right hardware check out what happens.

The counter-example here is i960; there are no non-embedded
alternatives (the choices are -coff, -elf, and -vxworks), and it does
have C++ support.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>