From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15637 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2003 00:47:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15628 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2003 00:47:27 -0000 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20031021004727.15627.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "wilson at tuliptree dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030821220644.12025.dhazeghi@yahoo.com> References: <20030821220644.12025.dhazeghi@yahoo.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/12025] combined build of i960 coff fails X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg01679.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12025 ------- Additional Comments From wilson at tuliptree dot org 2003-10-21 00:47 ------- Subject: Re: combined build of i960 coff fails On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 20:18, dhazeghi at yahoo dot com wrote: > If the i960 port really is dead, why don't we deprecate it in 3.4 (or even remove it)? As for those > who claim they need it, they can always keep the current source. I just don't see the point in > keeping something nonbuildable and unmaintained in the tree. What you think? I have recommended it for deprecation every time the subject has come up. So far, I haven't been successful. We have mainly been doing non controversial deprecations, e.g. if anyone claims they need a port, we don't deprecate it. Every time I've tried to get the i960 port deprecated, someone has claimed that they needed it. No one has ever stepped forward to help fix bugs in it though, and I haven't seen any evidence that anyone is actually trying to use it. Eventually, the stalemate will be broken, but for now, it remains an unmaintained and often unbuildable port.