On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowl...@kev009.com> wrote:
> My argument is simply this, sorry if it wasn't clear in the last > email, bottom line up front: > - It can just as easily be removed in the future if it is broken for > more than one release rather than evicting support. > - It shouldn't add unwieldy maintenance overhead. The old stuff can > be walled off, conditionally built, and otherwise removed from the > main focus. > - The code is already written and just needs a maintainer. > - I have the hardware and desire to maintain it. > > Please reread the last paragraph in my previous email. The CPU > architecture is still manufactured and in use. This is a strawman > argument as I cannot say that these organizations are using GCC but it > wouldn't be unimaginable. RAD6000 has been superceded by RAD750. No RIOS hardware is manufactured nor used. RAD6000 *was* manufactured. RAD750 is manufactured. And any developers still using RAD6000 would not program the hardware with GCC 4.6. Despite your assertions, it is a significant maintenance overhead for some of the improvements that we want to add to the rs6000 port. It literally doubles the amount of changes to modify all of the POWER architecture machine description patterns. The problem is not a lack of maintainer. I have been maintaining the code for almost 20 years. If you need RIOS support in GCC 4.6, you can re-introduce the removed code in your private tree. David
