This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PROPOSAL: Policy for obsoleting targets


On Fri, 16 May 2003, Joe Buck wrote:

> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 06:04:41PM +0100, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > I would like to see the lists of:
> > 
> > * all supported target triples (preferably put them all in install.texi - 
> 
> The list would be empty, since we do not provide support as it is
> traditionally understood for any platform.  We should be careful to avoid
> this word.
> 
> If you want to replace it by a list of *tested* target triples, that's
> fine.  Or we could list the primary and secondary platforms.

I refer to the (equivalence classes of) target triples for which
configuration files and code in config.gcc to use them are present.  At
present, we have a partial list in install.texi (install/specific.html) of
systems with specific notes and some others where it is just described
what the target triple means, and old lists on install-old.texi of once
known values of CPU, company and system, and machine aliases; I suggest
that the list in install.texi should include all target triples (with for
each at least a text statement of what system is meant) so that the lists
in install-old.texi are fully obsoleted and can be removed.

Kaveh has had such a list derived from config.gcc in the past (e.g.  
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-11/msg00188.html> - of course that
particular list is very out of date by now).

> > * the target triples for which no testresults have been received; both of
> > these lists being marked according to whether they are hosted systems.
> 
> How can we generate this list?  config.guess will generate an arbitrarily
> large list of target triples, including identifiers for OS revisions that
> didn't exist at the time the compiler shipped.

The first list minus the second list; made finite by considering
equivalence classes of configurations, as noted above; hopefully there is
no code in GCC depending on the particular configured future version of an
OS.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]