A Case to maintain target i370-*-mvs as a live target

[Kazu Hirata]

Hi Ivan,

> > - It uses the old define_peephole
> > - It doesn't use define_constant
> > - It is a cc0 target.
> 
> I cannot comment on the above. My gcc internals knowledge is yet too
> rudimentary. The question is really : Do the above make it impossible
> to maintain the port, or does it mean some extra work is needed to
> comply to these constraints ?

It does not mean that it's impossible to maintain the port just
because things like define_peephole or cc0 is used.  However, we're
trying to move away from these constructs to clean up the machine
independent part of the compiler.  Removing obsolete/unmaintained
ports is an excellent opportunity to reduce uses of these old
constructs as replacing them with fully supported ones usually require
in-depth knowledge of the port.

Kazu Hirata