On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Adam Wolk <adam.w...@koparo.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> > From: Adam Wolk <adam.w...@koparo.com> >> > Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 23:23:40 +0200 ... >> > Which lead me to a hunt on how other parts of base/ports handle this. >> > I grepped /usr/src and found something interesting. >> > >> > /gnu/gcc/gcc/config/pa/hpux-unwind.h >> >> This is HP-UX specific code. > > Yes, but there are also other code paths like: > ./gnu/gcc/gcc/config/i386/linux-unwind.h:#include <sys/ucontext.h> > > It's in the base system, even if it's correct for other platforms then I > don't see a reason > for code that will never compile on OpenBSD to be included in OpenBSD base - > unless > removing it from the build system is more effort than maintaining it's > presence.
There's always a question with 3rd party code, such as everything under gnu/, of whether local changes should be minimized or expansive. Once the changes become too expansive, it'll effectively be a fork which requires more local resources to be spent on it going forward: look how much effort has gone into libressl. It seems in this case that the benefits of removing that code are insubstantial compared to the time that would be required (would need to verify that all the archs still build unchanged). Properly done, there would be *no* effect on the binaries, and would have only limited improvements on code comprehensibility: this isn't like other programs where we can delete piles of #ifdefs that cluster the main code, and really there's very little development being done in the gcc code itself...so why bother? Philip Guenther
