Remaining host configuration fragments

[mike stump]

> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM>
> To: dj@redhat.com (DJ Delorie)
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:25:12 -0800 (PST)
> Cc: jsm28@cam.ac.uk, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, dj@redhat.com

> Unfortunately, it's hard to avoid, unless we mark the vast majority
> of platforms deprecated because no one sent us a test result during
> development.

A gcc that only supports 6 platforms, and nothing else isn't what we
should sign up for.  This would be bad.  Making a decision that
ultimately results in this outcome, is also bad and I am against it.

I'd rather deprecate because we believe that no machines exist in
production or near production use on the planet, not because of a lack
of testcase submittal.  Go count the number of platforms submitted in
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/buildstat.html.  There aren't many.

Bitrotting is fine.  Everything bitrots.  It is a natural state of
affairs.  As the code matures, the incident rate of bitrotting should
decrease.  A slightly bitrotted port is usually fairly easy to get
going again.

It is when we don't expect it is useful to get a port going again,
that it might be beneficial to remove it.

IBM-RT I think is finally dead.  Quick, bonus points if someone can
even name the chip in it.  Kenner, you don't get to play (I think you
wrote it).

Likewise any OS that hasn't had a new release in 5 years.  These are
likely to not be worthwhile to preserve.