On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:50:24AM +0100, Justin Cormack wrote: > On 31 May 2015 at 00:09, David Holland <dholland-t...@netbsd.org> wrote: > > I'm saying that, fundamentally, if you want to run gcc4 or gcc5 on a > > Sparc IPC that you're going to have problems. There is no way around > > this, except maybe to float a new compiler with the specific goal of > > both being modern and running on 25-year-old hardware. (That's an > > enormous project.) > > I think pcc is currently the only realistic solution, but it still > needs a lot of work, > and we would want to do this without compromising support for gcc/clang, so > it means fixing pcc, as well as adding more architectures. (I would be happy > with a no c++ base system to support this). pcc has come a long way, and > we could get to a pcc base system for some architectures for 8.0 I think.
Right; the question is to what extent this ends up making those architectures second-class. At some point (not necessarily this point) it becomes a de facto fork with most of the problems and none of the advantages of calling it one. Perhaps in place of "fork" read "two development branches" -- it certainly doesn't make sense to hold a schism and stop talking to one another in the sense of certain events of ~20 years ago. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org