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

[Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>]

>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Wilson <bwilson@tensilica.com> writes:

 Bob> One thing that would help me a lot would be an easier way of
 Bob> finding out about changes that I need to make to keep the Xtensa
 Bob> port well-maintained.  I spend a significant fraction of my time
 Bob> trying to keep up with this mailing list.  Even so, I've had a
 Bob> hard time finding out what the current expectations are for GCC
 Bob> ports.  Going back to the DFA scheduler example, if I had known
 Bob> that you were planning to remove it for the next release, I
 Bob> would have made sure to to do that work sooner.  If you
 Bob> mentioned it on the mailing list, I guess I must have missed it.

(Presumably Bob meant the non-DFA scheduler...)

I'll echo that comment.  A DFA scheduler for the PDP11 wouldn't be
hard :-) but I haven't bothered to date since I didn't see any reason
to.  Ditto for some of the other things that claim to be "bad" in that
list.  

For a couple of them, it's completely unclear what the issue is, other
than some style concerns that may not apply to a port in the first
place (e.g., define_symbol).  If there were a readily available
description, something more accessible than 5 years of mailing list
archives, that spells this out, that would be a big help.  It would
make the job doable for those of us who aren't professional GCC
maintainers. 

In other words, a list of (a) each deprecated item, (b) why it's
deprecated, (c) when it's supposed to go away, (d) what replaces it. 

	    paul