This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] A policy for supported ports and targets


On 21 Jun 2004 at 1:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:

> PROPOSAL 3
> 
> Ports can be obsoleted when the port is no longer maintained.  A port is
> considered maintained if all of the following conditions are met:
> 1) Test results are reported to gcc-testresults by the port maintaine in
>    every stage 3 of the release cycle.  The release notes will point to
>    the latest reported test results before the release.
> 2) The port has been updated from old interfaces/infrastructure before
>    the old infrastructure is removed (as per Proposal 2).
> 3) backends.html is up-to-date.
> Obsolete ports will be removed in the next minor release unless the port
> maintainer resumes active maintenance of the port such that it can be
> considered a maintained port again.

I would prefer a modification of the above conditions. #1 seems a bit onerous 
to be included as a "required" condition especially for targets that are only 
used in cross-compilers.

Specifically I would be referring to the Atmel AVR, which has a working 
toolchain, thousands of users, and a core group of people maintaining the 
toolchain (to the best of their abilities given time and energy). However AFAIK 
there is no one posting any test results for this target. I'm not even sure if 
there is a way to currently run the gcc testsuite for the AVR target. So if 
those above rules were adopted, the AVR would, I think wrongly, get on the 
obsolete list.

I've also seen on the crossgcc list, efforts by Dan Kegel, et al. to finally 
build cross-compilers in a reliable way (via Dan's crosstool script) and in 
many cases just now able to run the testsuite on these toolchains where they 
haven't been before. (Dan, correct me if I'm wrong.)

So I would either:
1. Drop #1 as a requirement.
2. Change it to be a requirement for only primary and/or secondary platforms 
which would remove that as a burden for a lot of targets used only for cross-
compilers.

FWIW
Eric Weddington


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]