Re: PROPOSAL: Variation on an Alternate policy for obsoleting targets

[DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>]

> Somehow, any supported platform needs to have the supporter
> communicating with GCC development in some way, yes?

No.  If the platform happens to work, there's no need for a maintainer
to communicate with us.

> Otherwise, what does it mean to say the platform is supported?

Lack of support does not imply need for deprecation.  A platform can
"happen to work" with no effort on the part of the gcc developers.

And as we've already seen, some platforms are supported by groups
outside of gcc development, who are in general happy with a target
that doesn't happen to be useful as-is out of the gcc source tree, but
would still be inconvenienced if that target were deprecated.

> If this is too much for some maintainer, couldn't it be argued that
> this maintainer is not maintaining?

I don't agree that cleaning up unused code is part of a target
maintainer's job.  A target maintainer's job is to ensure that the
target continues to work, regardless of how much or how little effort
that requires.