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: Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4

From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Jim Wilson <wilson at tuliptree dot org>, sje at cup dot hp dot com, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:14:17 +0100
Subject: Re: Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4
References: <571f6b510903150916qa6ec3a4o6a85c09698ee0bb@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903151704530.26461@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Note that I do not propose to add this sort of substantial target-specific
> code change to my patch to remove deprecated targets/features
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00527.html> (currently
> pending review for 4.5); I'll leave such removals to target maintainers
> (just as I did not remove all the Unicos/Mk code that's still present in
> the Alpha back end when removing deprecated target/features for 4.4,
> leaving that to the Alpha maintainers).

Right.

Should it be agreed that deprecating Itanium1 is a good idea, then of
course I'll take care of removing the code for it, but I would do it
at the end of the GCC 4.5 development cycle.

Does that make sense?

Ciao!
Steven

References:
- Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

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