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: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

From: Ben Elliston <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>
To: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:22:36 +1100
Subject: Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801211859440.11050@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <200801212005.m0LK55vR020709@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <b609cb3b0801220106n52b3195k74c833c9802791f0@mail.gmail.com> <4795F2E6.9040809@redhat.com> <6c33472e0801220606j5c46b20dqdf7e89a88a729466@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 15:06 +0100, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez wrote:

> I agree that weighing the user base doesn't make any practical sense.
> But I can't understand the reason for removing something that works
> fine because it may rot in the future.

Every port, working or not, imposes a certain amount of maintenance
overhead.  It also adds inertia, because a small change that affects
every backend might discourage someone from making that change, even if
it's the right thing to do.

Ben

References:
- GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals
  - From: John David Anglin
- Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals
  - From: NightStrike
- Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals
  - From: Manuel López-Ibáñez

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