Re: [patch] config.gcc: Obsolete c4x.

["Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp dot com>" <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > > I will also certainly say that if there is consensus that we should 
> > > resurrect this port, then we should do so.  I'm not stubbornly about 
> > > killing it.  A possible compromise would be to bring it back on the 
> > > 4.0 branch only, and see if anyone fixes it before 4.1. 
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a reasonable (may-be temporary) compromise to me, esp.
> > because the c4x had been in 4.0.0, removing it for 4.0.1 doesn't make
> > much sense to me.
>
>
> Does anyone besides Ralf have an opinion on this proposal?


For the record, I am generally a proponent of obseleting targets.
Sometimes, I also like to make a last valiant stand to save a dying
target.  In this case, I believe that it is nearly a certainty that this 
target will be removed.

My objection is primarily on the basis of timing.  I thought it was late 
in the cycle to obsolete it compared to previous target obsoletions. 
IMO the discussion on the gcc list had not reached a clear consensus on
immediate obsoletion.

With that said, I would not have objected to "at risk in 4.0", "obsolete 
in 4.1", and "removed from 4.2".

This is all my personal opinion and is likely just serving to delay the 
inevitable.

--joel