From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6077 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2010 23:07:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 6066 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2010 23:07:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,TBC X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-px0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-px0-f175.google.com) (209.85.212.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:07:15 +0000 Received: by pxi12 with SMTP id 12so109814pxi.20 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.157.8 with SMTP id f8mr162838wfe.172.1277852833720; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.44.20 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:51:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Power/PowerPC RIOS/RIOS2 obsolescence From: Kevin Bowling To: Steven Bosscher Cc: David Edelsohn , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00858.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Steven Bosscher wr= ote: > On 6/30/10, Kevin Bowling wrote: >>> GCC's mission is not to >>> support every system in a computer history museum. =A0Older versions of >>> GCC created at the time of those systems still will work on those >>> systems. >>> >> >> >> This is an unfortunate attitude many people have in free software >> these days, especially big business contributors with profit-aligned >> motives. > > As a not-for-profit gcc hacker: istm that it's the other way around. > Small groups of non-contributors with insignificant hobby projects, > trying to impose their ideals on foss projects. We see it all the time > on this list. > > But perhaps you could share your technical arguments instead? > Especially counter-arguments against David's, which you conveniently > ignore? > > Ciao! > Steven > Steven, 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. Regards, Kevin Bowling