This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Deprecating ARM FPA support (was: ARM Neon Tests Failing on non-Neon Target)
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: rearnsha at arm dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, martinwguy at gmail dot com, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:51:15 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Deprecating ARM FPA support (was: ARM Neon Tests Failing on non-Neon Target)
- References: <AANLkTimkz9SCy1XXHOsduUsboMv-yi4DYFxkCljPdCqO@mail.gmail.com> <4BF98F97.7050305@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTimNV-U-345qL0HImGJsNQasIX8tQIjLFIddrzuM@mail.gmail.com> <1274689560.17090.26.camel@e102346-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <11005241309.AA13087@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Mon, 24 May 2010, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I think that's a critical distinction. I can't see removing a port just
> because it's not used much (or at all) because it might be valuable for
> historical reason or to show examples for how to do things. If the
> maintenance burden of keeping that port is just doing some mechanical
> changes a couple of times a year when the backend API changes, that port
> should be kept even if there are ZERO known users.
Nothing in life is free, and certainly those "mechanical changes a
couple of times a year" are not. Plus we do have been using version
control systems for more than a decade, so indeed I'd say a port with
zero known users should actually be removed. As should a port that
is not maintained, of course.
Gerald