On Mon, 24 May 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > The vax back-end only affects VAX; likewise for the PDP11 port. > > ...all this legacy just gets in the way of gcc as a whole. So I still > don't see the difference. > > Nb, I don't oppose deprecating any arm stuff, but I just would like to > know if the justification also applies to other backends/ports. > Patched from me and others were rejected in the past even though the > situation was similar. Under what criteria would such patches now get > support from the RMs?
I don't think it's generally an RM matter; it's a matter for the relevant architecture and OS port maintainers (and for bare-metal targets such as arm-elf that means the architecture maintainers; likewise for -linux-gnu* targets since there is no separate GNU/Linux target maintainer). What the responsibilities of maintainers are - whether it can be expected that target maintainers (or maintainers of other components) will do some defined cleanup or API change in some defined time with the targets otherwise liable to deprecation - is certainly a reasonable topic for discussion. We were going to deprecate the targets not updated for IRA, but then a solution was produced that didn't require each target to be updated by its maintainer to continue to build.... -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
