This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] config.gcc: Obsolete c4x.
- From: "Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp dot com>" <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Ralf Corsepius <ralf dot corsepius at rtems dot org>, Kazu Hirata <kazu at cs dot umass dot edu>,GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, m dot hayes at elec dot canterbury dot ac dot nz
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 11:02:15 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] config.gcc: Obsolete c4x.
- References: <email@example.com> <42702A83.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <42779D95.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
1. I don't recall any consensus on abandoning QImode!=8bits.
I don't think this issue is relevant in terms of considering whether or
not to obsolete the C4X port. Whether or not QImode is always 8 bits is
a fine debate, but it's a separate debate. I certainly was not taking a
position on that debate in approving the obsoletion request. Independent
of the size of QImode, I think that everyone agrees that supporting
targets with > 8-bit minimum addressable units is a useful thing.
2. tic4x-gcc-3.4.x is buildable, tic4x-gcc-4.x had never built.
i.e. actually a regression has occurred sometime between 3.4.x and 4.0,
which had slipped through GCC-regression testing cracks.
Yes, and that is evidence that the platform is indeed obsolete. Nobody
was willing to invest in making it work in GCC 4.0.
And in one of my earlier posts on this, that was why I admitted to
having to reluctantly agree to putting it on the obseletion path.
Lack of an active maintainer is very bad.