This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Should we remove remnants of UWIN support in gcc/config.* files?
- From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>,FX <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:31:39 -0400
- Subject: Re: Should we remove remnants of UWIN support in gcc/config.* files?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <168AA6F2-01C4-4B57-A7F3-EE15001B7B30 at gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508202107520 dot 2630 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CB4BF244-8AFF-486B-B21E-16BD2905CB77 at gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508202121440 dot 2630 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On August 20, 2015 5:22:47 PM EDT, Joseph Myers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, FX wrote:
>> > Well, they aren't *targets*, but *host* and *build* systems.
>> Yes, but do we maintain a list of support host or build systems, that
>> would be different from our list of supported targets?
>I don't think there's such a list. For any such system that's not a
>supported target to work in practice, it would need a reasonably modern
>C++ compiler, which probably rules out a lot of systems that have been
>obsoleted as targets.
Wouldn't a list be able to be compiled from major branch release announcements? There should be a deprecated and removed note in two release branch descriptions. Even if we screwed up and forgot to list it on both, if it likely to be in one of them.