From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8556 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2002 18:26:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8548 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 18:26:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out2.apple.com) (17.254.0.51) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 18:26:30 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g93IQSs14856 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:26:26 -0700 Received: from apple.com (vpn-scv-x2-184.apple.com [17.219.193.184]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g93IQP329061; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D9C8B8A.9020500@apple.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:44:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Henderson CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: deprecate i960 now? References: <20021003173232.GA1782@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00171.txt.bz2 Richard Henderson wrote: >It seems that gdb obseleted i960 on 2002-08-22. This makes it >fairly painful for gcc folk to test on i960, since that killed >the simulator as well. > >I propose that we follow suit and add i960 to the deprecated list >for 3.3 so that it is removed in 3.4. > >Thoughts? > You could use Intel's GDB perhaps, since they suggest it in their massive collection of i960 info at http://www.intel.com/design/i960. It would be somewhat of a departure to move from obsoleting long-dead architectures to taking away ones that, in Intel's words (in their FAQ) are still shipping in "high volumes". Although I don't have any personal stake in i960 support, I'm a little troubled by the idea of dropping embedded targets that are still supported by proprietary compilers. It makes it easy for the proprietaries to point to the dropping of targets as a reason not to use GNU for any target, because of the risk of arbitrary decisions like this. Chucking a never-taped-out oddball like the d30v doesn't matter, but for a still-used processor like the i960 it really seems like a retreat. Stan