http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> --- The problem Richard is nobody is maintaining the code. What makes this any different than a port which has become unmaintained and thus isn't being fixed in a timely manner? I'm not in a position to own the code and unless someone steps in to own it/maintain it, I'll formally call for its removal after 4.9 is released. You called the code out as unmaintained two years ago. I called it out again in the 2013 Cauldron. At some point we have to face reality and take appropriate action. In the mean time I want to see all the graphite stuff move to a P4/P5 priority. There's no way we should have graphite on the critical path for a release if it's not being maintained. Creating a meta-bug at that time would be reasonable as well. We wouldn't be throwing away the code, so if someone wanted to rebuild a LNO, they could always pull the code out of an old release/branch and use that to jumpstart the process. Again, it's no different than a port that has become unmaintained -- someone can always pick it up from an old release/branch and use it to jumpstart development of the port again.
