On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > For MMIX, the issues I mentioned at > > <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg00572.html> are > > presumably fixed, but pragmatically the interest level for > > Those look like newlib-target issues, not MMIX-target issues, in any case.
The issues mentioned there, yes. But also, the mmixware simulator is really restricted in what I/O it can do, more so than what a src/sim simulator can do, and it's more cast in stone than a src/sim simulator (where missing necessary support can naturally be added as an improvement). As the MMIX port primarily targets this simulator, it's a MMIX-specific issue. > > So, for the time being I'm > > not prepared to add that as something that is expected to be > > maintained. > > It's not a matter of "expected to be maintained", it's a matter of targets > only being different from other targets where there is a clear reason for > that difference (an important feature of the GNU toolchain is consistency > between targets). I expect most users of many targets to be using > --enable-languages=c,c++ (or just c) - but I see no reason for the > defaults for this target to be different from those for many other > newlib-using targets. I don't support this as an absolute truth: though needless differences should be investigaged and fixed, I expect leverage to be allowed the respective target maintainer. brgds, H-P
