Re: Obsoleting unmaintained targets

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

chewbaccathewookie@att.net wrote:

> Hello from Gregg C Levine
> Actually yes. I see a need for the Big Foot one, thats i370, and the Intel 
> i960. For example for the i960 I do have a processor here, been shopping for 
> a board for it, for a while now.  As for the i370 one, isn't that the core 
> for  building s/390 based kernel? There should be one for i390 instead then. 
> Just my two cents.
>  
Someone more familiar with the i370/i390 distinction can explain the 
rationale behind that one.

The i960 has bene on the chopping block for a fairly long time and the 
Steering Committee has
made extra effort to attempt to find a maintainer.  No one appeared.  
The i960 port has been
broken for a long time.  See:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2001-07/msg00257.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-10/msg00359.html

In addition, it has already been obsoleted by gdb and that didn't cause 
much noise either. :)

So unless you are volunteering to fix gcc and gdb and maintain them by 
yourself, there isn't
much alternative.  Sorry.

--joel sherrill

> Gregg C Levine chewbaccathewookie atsign worldnet dot att dot net
>
> This signature was brought here by the Falcon.
>  
>
> > In the GCC 3.4 release (still some time in the future), the GCC 
> > developers are obsoleting a number of old unmaintained targets. 
> > Obsoleting these old systems allows the development team to focus its 
> > limited resources to support those systems that are used by more people.
> >
> > These targets can still be configured by using the --enable-obsolete 
> > option.  If no one steps forward to maintain these targets, they will be 
> > deleted in a future gcc release.
> >
> > Below, please find the complete list, in the form of GNU target 
> > triplets.  This has been extensively revised from the list that was 
> > originally posted in March.
> >
> > If you feel strongly that support for one of these targets should not be 
> > removed, please contact us by email to gcc@gcc.gnu.org.  Traditionally, 
> > GCC has been more receptive to requests that a particular target not be 
> > removed if a volunteer is available to maintain that target, so if 
> > you're interested in volunteering you should state that explicitly. 
> >    
>
>  
>
> > Also, "there are 1000 of us using this machine heavily all day long and 
> > we were planning to upgrade to GCC 3.4" is probably more likely to sway 
> > the development team than "I think there is still one of those in my 
> > closet." :-)
> >
> > All targets for these architectures have been obsoleted:
> > 	d30v-*
> > 	dsp16xx-*
> > 	i370-*
> > 	i960-*
> >
> > Individual targets that have been obsoleted:
> > 	i?86-moss-msdos
> > 	i?86-*-moss*
> > 	i?86-ncr-sysv4*
> > 	i?86-*-netware
> > 	i?86-*-freebsd2*
> > 	i?86-*-freebsd*aout*
> > 	i?86-*-linux*aout*
> > 	i?86-*-linux*libc1*
> > 	# This does not affect Interix3 support which remains.
> > 	i?86-*-interix
> > 	i?86-*-mach*
> > 	i?86-*-udk*
> > 	i?86-*-sysv[123]*
> > 	i386-*-vsta
> >
> > 	m68k-hp-hpux*
> > 	m68000-hp-hpux*
> > 	m68k-*-sysv4*
> >
> > 	# This is only the a.out netbsd targets, the elf netbsd targets
> > 	# remain.
> > 	m68k*-*-netbsd*
> >
> > 	# This is only the default target, which is no longer useful.
> > 	# The *BSD, Ultrix, and Sysv targets remain.
> > 	vax-*-*
> > --
> > Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com
> >
> >    
>
>