This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Obsoleting c4x last minute for 4.0
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Maybe we need a third category - 'at risk'. Such a port will typically
> have no active maintainer, some likely serious bugs and might at some
> future date be obsoleted if no maintainer steps forward.
>
> We could put several ports into that category and it shouldn't have the
> negative stigma that obsolete seems to have.
One possible way of assessing activity would be to say that after 4.1
maintained CPU ports should have test results for mainline regularly sent
to gcc-testresults and monitored for regressions, though this rather
depends on the willingness of maintainers of embedded ports to do this
testing; ports without such testing and regression monitoring could be
considered at risk.
Only the following ports seem to have had results for 4.1.0-mainline (i.e.
mainline since 4.0 branched) sent to gcc-testresults: alpha, arm, hppa,
i?86/x86_64, ia64, mips, powerpc, s390, sh, sparc, although cris and mmix
are evidently monitored for regressions even though they don't get test
results to gcc-testresults. (If test results for a port are so bad that
though sent to gcc-testresults they exceed the message size limit, and
this remains the case for a prolonged period such as ever since 4.0
branched, that also indicates lack of active maintenance.)
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)