This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: deprecate i960 now?
- From: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:50:22 -0400
- Subject: Re: deprecate i960 now?
- References: <3D9C8B8A.9020500@apple.com> <200210040018.g940Iac02570@piper.synopsys.com>
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:18:36PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> If we have no maintainer and no i960 processors, and the gdb folks are
> taking away resources, we can't maintain it. We can have an alternate
> designation in such cases, "orphaned" rather than "deprecated", meaning
> it's on hold until volunteers step up to the challenge of keeping it
> going.
[...]
> Agreed, which is why an "orphaned" status might be better. The code can
> stay around, but maintainance goes on hold until someone takes it over.
I don't understand the advantage of keeping code in the tree that we
know doesn't work, or at least /will/ break given that there's nobody
maintaining it. Surely a future interested developer can fetch the last-
known-working version of i960 code from CVS with not much difficulty.
Phil
--
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002