GCC 4.6 secondary platform update

GCC 4.6 secondary platform update

[Paolo Bonzini]

 From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-09/msg00501.html:

> we looked at the current list of primary and
> secondary targets and suggested (again) to demote i686-apple-darwin to
> a secondary platform on the base that it is unmaintained.  We
> recognize that it is used and gets many bugs filed against.
> It was suggested to drop powerpc-apple-darwin from the list of
> secondary platforms.

This was done.

> It was also suggested to change hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
> to ia64-hpux and to change s390-linux-gnu to s390x-linux-gnu in the
> list of secondary targets.

Shall we proceed?

Paolo

Re: GCC 4.6 secondary platform update

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-09/msg00501.html:
>> It was also suggested to change hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
>> to ia64-hpux and to change s390-linux-gnu to s390x-linux-gnu in the
>> list of secondary targets.
> Shall we proceed?

I'd say "Yes", and I did not see any comments to the contrary, either.  

Let me quickly raise this with the steering committee...

Gerald

Re: GCC 4.6 secondary platform update

[Steven Bosscher]

On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-09/msg00501.html:
>>> It was also suggested to change hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
>>> to ia64-hpux and to change s390-linux-gnu to s390x-linux-gnu in the
>>> list of secondary targets.
>> Shall we proceed?
>
> I'd say "Yes", and I did not see any comments to the contrary, either.

Well, let me add one short comment then. I'd say hppa2-hpux is still
much more relevant than ia64-hpux -- at least, everywhere I'm looking
i.e. workstations. It may be different in the server market.

Anyway, when I look at posted gcc-testresults of this month, there are
*zero* postings of testresults for ia64-hpux, and daily results (more,
in fact) for hppa2-hpux.

can we keep hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 as a secondary target for at least
one more release, and not add ia64-hpux?

Ciao!
Steven

Re: GCC 4.6 secondary platform update

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Well, let me add one short comment then. I'd say hppa2-hpux is still
> much more relevant than ia64-hpux -- at least, everywhere I'm looking
> i.e. workstations. It may be different in the server market.
> 
> Anyway, when I look at posted gcc-testresults of this month, there are
> *zero* postings of testresults for ia64-hpux, and daily results (more,
> in fact) for hppa2-hpux.
> 
> can we keep hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 as a secondary target for at least
> one more release, and not add ia64-hpux?

I find your line of reasoning very convincing. :-)

Gerald

Re: GCC 4.6 secondary platform update

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 07/10/2010 10:01 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Well, let me add one short comment then. I'd say hppa2-hpux is still
>> much more relevant than ia64-hpux -- at least, everywhere I'm looking
>> i.e. workstations. It may be different in the server market.
>>
>> Anyway, when I look at posted gcc-testresults of this month, there are
>> *zero* postings of testresults for ia64-hpux, and daily results (more,
>> in fact) for hppa2-hpux.
>>
>> can we keep hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 as a secondary target for at least
>> one more release, and not add ia64-hpux?
>
> I find your line of reasoning very convincing. :-)

The reason for ia64-hpux was that it exercises some unique code paths 
due to addp4, but Steven's reasoning is also convincing...

Paolo