This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Overwhelmed by GCC frustration
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:54:12AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/31/2017 11:23 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:12:41AM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> >> I could probably write a similar rant. This is the life of a "minority
> >> target programmer". Most development efforts are being done with
> >> primary targets in mind. And as a result, most changes are being
> >> tested only on such targets.
> > Also, many changes require retuning of all target backends. This never
> > happens for those backends that aren't very actively maintained.
> Well, I'd claim it's time to jettison some of those backends :-)
If targets no longer build (*), or are no longer useful for anything,
or are a drag on GCC development itself, then sure.
> sleep easier at night if we deprecated all the cc0 targets for gcc-8,
> then removed them (if they weren't converted) by gcc-9.
I second that motion.
> Once cc0 is out of the way, then I'd push for doing the same for non-LRA
That is a bit aggressive perhaps, we'll lose lots of targets that way,
and it is important for GCC development itself to have a wide variety
> Yes, it's a bit draconian :-) BUt if someone wants an m68k compiler (to
> pick on one I maintain that wouldn't survive), they can always use an
> older version of GCC or do the conversion to bring it up to modern
> standards. Realistically I'll never do it for the m68k, it's just not
> important enough relatively to the other stuff on my plate.
(*) I tried to build arc-elf-gcc today. Turns out it won't build except
with really new binutils (but that at least worked).