[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084

--- Comment #47 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #35)
> > A port does not need maintenance only for that port, and its users, but also
> > for GCC itself.  All ports are a cost to _all_ GCC developers.  If a port is
> > not maintained it has to be removed.
> 
> Do you IBM guys have a hidden agenda to bury the left-overs of Freescale? ;-)
> 
> The SPE port has already been moved out of the way so I don't really see the
> point in further hammering it like that; there are plenty of obsolete ports
> in the tree that would have to removed before this one if the above
> criterion was followed to the letter.

This is not about IBM.

Believe it or not, but the rs6000 port maintainers *care* about older systems.

I wanted to obsolete SPE support because it is a big burden, not in small part
because no one maintains it.  This has been going on for years and years.

Big pushback; people still want SPE, they just don't want to spend work on it.
Well neither do we, it's been enough.  So I spent a week splitting off the port
(also tested removing VSX etc.; removing unused code does not take that long;
I just have no way to *test* it so that was not included).  It was agreed the
powerpcspe port would be maintained or it would be removed.

Now a year later GCC 8 is on the horizon, and the powerpcspe port is still not
maintained.  And the RMs decided to give it *another* year: it is not removed
but merely obsoleted.