On Sun, Apr 19, 2015, at 12:23 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: > 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
Understood. Thank you for the explanation. Regards, Adam
