On 09/29/2015 08:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 09/29/2015 07:19 AM, Oleg Endo wrote:
On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 15:28 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
We can at least change the default to LRA, so new ports get it
unless they like to hurt themselves.
I don't think it makes sense to keep reload around *just* for
the ports that are in "maintenance mode": by the time we are
down to *just* those ports, it makes more sense to relabel them
as "unmaintained".
Just for my understanding ... what's the definition of
"maintenance mode" or "unmaintained"?
I'm not sure there's any formal definition.
If the port isn't getting tested, bugs aren't getting fixed, fails
to build, etc then it's probably a good bet you could put it into
the unmaintained bucket.
If the port does get occasional fixes (primarily driven by BZs),
but not getting updated on a regular basis (such as conversion to
LRA, conversion to RTL prologue/epilogue, etc), may be only getting
occasional testing, etc. Then it's probably fair to call it in
maintenance mode. A great example IMHO would be the m68k.
Another criteria would be available hardware for which both the PA
and alpha ports are a good example. When you can't buy new hardware
then targets that could formerly host GCC quickly rot to the state
where only cross-compilation is viable (and having "old" GCC is good
enough).
Very true. Actually the PA is the best example there. Alpha I believe
has a functional-enough QEMU port to do real work and m68k has Aranym
which I've used to bootstrap m68k within the last 18 months. Hell, I
think Aranym actually ran faster than the last shipping real hardware!
I'd say that all ports not in maintainance mode should be at least
secondary archs as we can expect maintainers to be around to keep it
at the quality level we expect for secondary targets. Now I'd like
to do the opposite conclusion and declare all non-primary/secondary
targets as in maintainance mode ... ;) We have 49 targets (counting
directories) and 7 of them compose the list of primary and secondary
triplets.
I could live with that.
jeff
