> Just FYI, based on what Byron points out with regard to the Zilog families needing C89 (and possibly other archs that weren't mentioned), I would probably vote -1 unless...
There have been several other cases over the years where there were ports to classic architectures no longer supported by contemporary GCC. I recall a project a few years back that needed to use GCC 2.9.3 because that was the only toolchain available. The SH1 architecture is still in the source tree and I believe that support for SH1 is only available in GCC 3.3.6 which is c89. > 2) someone can convince me that no one cares about these architectures > anymore, such as if it's shown that NuttX already contains significant > breakage on these platforms that prevents them from working anyway, no one > has complained, and it has gone unfixed for several years Classic Z80 is probably not viable due to the 64Kb address limitation but is still relevant for Z80 derived parts with MMUs such as Z180 and the ZX Spectrum Next or with wider address buses such as the eZ80. z8 was never well tested. But eZ80 and ZNEO have been important platforms to support and are/were needed by a few still active products. z8, ez80, and ZNEO using the ZiLOG ZDS-II compiler. I don't know the current outstanding issues with that compiler. The Z80 parts currently use SDCC but could also use one of several other open source compilers such as Z88dk which I know nothing about. Breakage in less commonly used ports is just a fact of life. Our policy in the past (eg., Windows native build) was not to remove support just because of breakage. Breakage can always be fixed, removed architectures cannot.
