Deprecating ARM FPA support (was: ARM Neon Tests Failing on non-Neon Target)

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Mon, 24 May 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:

> > The vax back-end only affects VAX; likewise for the PDP11 port.
> 
> ...all this legacy just gets in the way of gcc as a whole. So I still
> don't see the difference.
> 
> Nb, I don't oppose deprecating any arm stuff, but I just would like to
> know if the justification also applies to other backends/ports.
> Patched from me and others were rejected in the past even though the
> situation was similar. Under what criteria would such patches now get
> support from the RMs?

I don't think it's generally an RM matter; it's a matter for the relevant 
architecture and OS port maintainers (and for bare-metal targets such as 
arm-elf that means the architecture maintainers; likewise for -linux-gnu* 
targets since there is no separate GNU/Linux target maintainer).

What the responsibilities of maintainers are - whether it can be expected 
that target maintainers (or maintainers of other components) will do some 
defined cleanup or API change in some defined time with the targets 
otherwise liable to deprecation - is certainly a reasonable topic for 
discussion.  We were going to deprecate the targets not updated for IRA, 
but then a solution was produced that didn't require each target to be 
updated by its maintainer to continue to build....

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com