Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 00:30, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
But if it won't even build, then users should be warned.
I suppose -- but we have relatively many configurations that probably
won't build, at least if you start combining various options, and
including langauges beyond just C and C++.
I'd be content with a patch that issued a warning, but declaring a
port obsolete has often been contentions, and I'd hate to rush into it.
Maybe we need a third category - 'at risk'. Such a port will typically
have no active maintainer, some likely serious bugs and might at some
future date be obsoleted if no maintainer steps forward.
We could put several ports into that category and it shouldn't have the
negative stigma that obsolete seems to have.
The RTEMS community has been interested in the c4x port for a long time
but we don't have anyone who can fix things at the level this one is
broken. We keep trying it and reporting on it. It gets a little
better, then it gets a little worse.
I have been reminded by an RTEMS user that the c4x port actually
did successfully build C for 3.4. This makes it a recent regression.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
