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] | |
On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology? Seriously...
Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this dichotomy :-)
True enough.
But if no sign of 386 embedded chips, then reasonable to deprecate I agree.
I believe it has been a very long time since any manufacturers made a pure 386 chip. While I've never used x86 devices in any of my embedded systems, I believe there are two main classes of x86 embedded systems - those that use DOS (these still exist!), and those that aim to be a small PC with more modern x86 OS's. For the DOS systems, gcc does not matter, because it is not used -
It is used (http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/). However 386 is not really supported any more for DJGPP for rather long time. I do not have corresponding hardware to test on 386 already for a long time so I did not do any testing on 386 when I built recent GCC versions for DJGPP for DJ FTP server (last is gcc-4.7.2). As far as I remember read in mailing list 386 support no more work (at least C++ standard library). So I guess deprecating 386 could be not too large loss.
compilers like OpenWatcom are far more common (ref. the FreeDOS website). And for people looking for "embedded PC's", the processor is always going to be a lot more modern than the 386 - otherwise they are not going to be able to run any current OS.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |