NightStrike wrote:
On 1/21/08, John David Anglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The following target architectures have seen no test results posted in
the past year: arc, c4x (as listed above), crx, iq2000, mt, pdp11,
score, stormy16, vax.
Regarding vax, I don't have the time to maintain it. HPPA has taken
all my free time in the past year. I probably should remove my name
as a vax maintainer.
There is still a small amount of vax related activity but I don't
expect the GCC port to be actively maintained. The community is too
small. So, I think it is reasonable to consider it for removal.
I recall in the last go around that some people thought it should
be maintained as an example.
I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax.
The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part
of the deprecation requirements take into account user base, or just
developer base?
While the idea of weighing the user base when deprecating a target seems
to make some emotional sense, it doesn't make any practical sense. The
compiler has to be maintained by someone or it will rot and cease to be
buildable, then it won't be of any use to users anyway. If there isn't an
active maintainer we can't continue to include a target, no matter how many
users it has.
Andrew.
