PROPOSAL: Policy for obsoleting targets

[Janis Johnson]

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:33:50PM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Peter Barada wrote:
> > 
> > >   At the time GCC version 3.n is released, all targets which have not
> > >   had a successful build and test report posted to gcc-testresults
> > >   for prereleases of minor version n, or releases n-1 and n-2, go on
> > >   the obsoletion list for version n+1.  "Successful" means minimum
> > >   useful functionality: it's okay if only the C compiler works.
> > 
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/buildstat.html or
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-04/ only shows host
> > compilers, and no embedded targets(such as ppc-eabi, m68k-elf, etc).
> > 
> > How do we prevent embedded targets(that are know to work fine) from
> > from being placed on the obsoletion list?
> 
  [snip]
> This is why I try to report fairly regularly on targets I honestly
> don't use for real work. My thinking is that CPU-elf or CPU-coff is
> so close to CPU-rtems that any code generation problems are shared.
> 
> Importantly for embedded targets without simulators, it can be painful
> to even run the suite requiring some significant effort to setup.

I might regret this, but I'm now willing to add cross build reports to
the GCC build status lists.  If someone wants to suggest a list of what
information such a report should include it could be linked from the
beginning of the document.  The list itself would probably just include
something like

  <target triple>                   Cross build: 3.3

where the "3.3" is a link to the archived message.  In previous
discussions about listing cross builds in the status lists, I've
assumed that I would need to pull relevant information out of the
messages about the host, target, and possibly build machine, and put
it all into the entry in some organized way.  If I can get away with
merely adding simple-minded links, I no longer have objections to
adding them to the list.

It would be fine, by the way, for a report to include a long list
of successful cross builds like the ones Joel does for RTEMS targets.

So, back to the point of this thread: what kind of information would
need to be included in reports of cross builds in order for those
targets to be considered active?

Janis