This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
PROPOSAL: Alternate policy for obsoleting targets
- From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 12:19:32 -0400
- Subject: PROPOSAL: Alternate policy for obsoleting targets
Here's a more modest proposal.
All target triples which are 'believed to work', at least somewhat,
must be listed in the manual. This will be done in the section for
target-specific notes, which I hereby volunteer to rewrite and update.
:-)
(I use the terminology 'believed to work' to avoid the word 'supported'.
Better terminology is welcomed.)
It's perfectly OK for wildcard targets a la 'i[456789]86-*-*' to be in
this list if we really believe that they work. :-)
After my first-pass rewrite (which will be based on config.gcc), I will
call for people to volunteer targets which I left out, and targets on
this list which actually aren't believed to work. After a few cycles of
this, and presumably before the release of 3.4, we'll have a 'complete list'.
Anything not on this list is immediately marked obsolete and removed.
Adding support for a target *requires* adding it to this list.
Removing support for a target *requires* removing it from this list.
--
Now for the actual obsolescence rule. :-)
Any target which has significant custom code (for instance, its own
subdirectory or file under config/) requires a maintainer. This is
most of them.
Any such target without a maintainer is advertised as needing one.
If nobody steps up to the plate within 3 months, the target is obsoleted
and then removed.
--Nathanael