Obsoleting unmaintained targets
Joel Sherrill
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com
Wed Dec 3 01:08:00 GMT 2003
chewbaccathewookie@att.net wrote:
>Hello from Gregg C Levine
>Actually yes. I see a need for the Big Foot one, thats i370, and the Intel
>i960. For example for the i960 I do have a processor here, been shopping for
>a board for it, for a while now. As for the i370 one, isn't that the core
>for building s/390 based kernel? There should be one for i390 instead then.
>Just my two cents.
>
>
Someone more familiar with the i370/i390 distinction can explain the
rationale behind that one.
The i960 has bene on the chopping block for a fairly long time and the
Steering Committee has
made extra effort to attempt to find a maintainer. No one appeared.
The i960 port has been
broken for a long time. See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2001-07/msg00257.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-10/msg00359.html
In addition, it has already been obsoleted by gdb and that didn't cause
much noise either. :)
So unless you are volunteering to fix gcc and gdb and maintain them by
yourself, there isn't
much alternative. Sorry.
--joel sherrill
>Gregg C Levine chewbaccathewookie atsign worldnet dot att dot net
>
>This signature was brought here by the Falcon.
>
>
>>In the GCC 3.4 release (still some time in the future), the GCC
>>developers are obsoleting a number of old unmaintained targets.
>>Obsoleting these old systems allows the development team to focus its
>>limited resources to support those systems that are used by more people.
>>
>>These targets can still be configured by using the --enable-obsolete
>>option. If no one steps forward to maintain these targets, they will be
>>deleted in a future gcc release.
>>
>>Below, please find the complete list, in the form of GNU target
>>triplets. This has been extensively revised from the list that was
>>originally posted in March.
>>
>>If you feel strongly that support for one of these targets should not be
>>removed, please contact us by email to gcc@gcc.gnu.org. Traditionally,
>>GCC has been more receptive to requests that a particular target not be
>>removed if a volunteer is available to maintain that target, so if
>>you're interested in volunteering you should state that explicitly.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Also, "there are 1000 of us using this machine heavily all day long and
>>we were planning to upgrade to GCC 3.4" is probably more likely to sway
>>the development team than "I think there is still one of those in my
>>closet." :-)
>>
>>All targets for these architectures have been obsoleted:
>> d30v-*
>> dsp16xx-*
>> i370-*
>> i960-*
>>
>>Individual targets that have been obsoleted:
>> i?86-moss-msdos
>> i?86-*-moss*
>> i?86-ncr-sysv4*
>> i?86-*-netware
>> i?86-*-freebsd2*
>> i?86-*-freebsd*aout*
>> i?86-*-linux*aout*
>> i?86-*-linux*libc1*
>> # This does not affect Interix3 support which remains.
>> i?86-*-interix
>> i?86-*-mach*
>> i?86-*-udk*
>> i?86-*-sysv[123]*
>> i386-*-vsta
>>
>> m68k-hp-hpux*
>> m68000-hp-hpux*
>> m68k-*-sysv4*
>>
>> # This is only the a.out netbsd targets, the elf netbsd targets
>> # remain.
>> m68k*-*-netbsd*
>>
>> # This is only the default target, which is no longer useful.
>> # The *BSD, Ultrix, and Sysv targets remain.
>> vax-*-*
>>--
>>Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the Gcc
mailing list