Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 22/01/2008, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NightStrike wrote:
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.
I agree that weighing the user base doesn't make any practical sense.
But I can't understand the reason for removing something that works
fine because it may rot in the future. I understand that if you don't
get test results then you may assume there are no users. But if you
get test results and they are fairly clean?
The interface between gcc and the back-ends changes fairly frequently,
so it's necessary for a target to be maintained or it will cease to work.
Another different matter would be if there were a lot of test failures
and open bug reports. Then it will be fair to send all test-results
reporters and bug subscribers a message saying:
"If no one steps up to maintain this, the target will be removed in
the next release."
That's what target deprecation is: we always deprecate in one release cycle
and delete in a subsequent cycle.
Andrew.
