https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #39 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #37) > Not sure about IBM, I as a GCC developer and RM have major problem with the > amount of dead code in the port, because anyone who makes changes to the > middle-end that need backend changes will waste time adjusting code that is > dead and can't be really tested (all the Altivec/VMX code, all the 64-bit > support in there, all the power6/7/8/9, all the floating point modes stuff, > etc.). It's not a waste of time if people are actually still using the code which is the case for both PowerPCSPE and m68k. I don't understand why some people think it's acceptable to kill open source stuff that is actively being used by others. > Furthermore the lack of -mno-lra removal in it. If somebody is > willing to change all backends rather than waiting on target maintainers to > fix stuff up, at least the work should not be wasted on dead code. Just > look e.g. how many times in the last year Richard Sandiford modified this > dead code in config/powerpcspe. That is pretty much all wasted effort > (others too). I think your problem lies in the fact that you are solely seeing this from the gcc maintainers perspective (which I cannot blame you for and which is not surprising). However, you have to keep in mind that - in the end - gcc is a product that people are using for productive work. So, there has to be a balance between the objective quality of the code and the usefulness of the project. If I understand Eric correctly, the PowerPCSPE backend has been split off from the other PPC code so as long as the code works and people are using it (and with someone even working on updating it), why the hurry to remove it?
