On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:54:12AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/31/2017 11:23 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:12:41AM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > >> I could probably write a similar rant. This is the life of a "minority > >> target programmer". Most development efforts are being done with > >> primary targets in mind. And as a result, most changes are being > >> tested only on such targets. > > > > Also, many changes require retuning of all target backends. This never > > happens for those backends that aren't very actively maintained. > Well, I'd claim it's time to jettison some of those backends :-)
If targets no longer build (*), or are no longer useful for anything, or are a drag on GCC development itself, then sure. > I'd > sleep easier at night if we deprecated all the cc0 targets for gcc-8, > then removed them (if they weren't converted) by gcc-9. I second that motion. > Once cc0 is out of the way, then I'd push for doing the same for non-LRA > targets. That is a bit aggressive perhaps, we'll lose lots of targets that way, and it is important for GCC development itself to have a wide variety of targets. > Yes, it's a bit draconian :-) BUt if someone wants an m68k compiler (to > pick on one I maintain that wouldn't survive), they can always use an > older version of GCC or do the conversion to bring it up to modern > standards. Realistically I'll never do it for the m68k, it's just not > important enough relatively to the other stuff on my plate. Nod. Segher (*) I tried to build arc-elf-gcc today. Turns out it won't build except with really new binutils (but that at least worked).
