Re: Removal of V2 code

[Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>]

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

> I plan on doing a `cvs remove' on the V2 sources, and removing the
> configury bits for V2 at the end of next week as things seem to be
> settling OK with V3.  (There are still some AIX issues with V3, but
> they seem to be well on the path to resolution.)
> 
> If you have objections to this plan (i.e., you need the V2 sources to
> continue your work), you should:
> 
>   - Try hard to get V3 working on your platform.
> 
>   - Complain to me.  Explain why you can't switch to V3, and what 
>     you need in order to make that happen.
> 
> We can keep V2 in the tree for a bit longer, if we need to, but you'll
> have to come up with a good reason... :-)

The embedded platforms (*-elf, powerpc-eabi*, *-coff) don't work yet with V3; I
don't believe anyone, certainly not at Red Hat, will be able to fix
this until next month; we don't have time.

I don't know what the vxworks status is, but I'd bet it doesn't work either.

I don't know what the Cygwin status is.  It may work.

Do HPUX, IRIX, BeOS work?

Does SunOS (not Solaris) work?  I think we still have SunOS customers.

At Red Hat we have not switched over to V3, primarily for this reason.

Such a change will make it difficult for us to merge patches back into
the FSF sources, because we would not be able to test them.  We would
end up committing patches saying "have tested with C++ only on our
internal sources, due to no libstdc++ support in the public tree".

Already you can see this effect; you will notice that the automated
tester is no longer testing C++ because the platform it tests with
is not supported by libstdc++-v3.

I believe this schedule is far too quick.  We have only had
libstdc++-v3 as the default for a few weeks, there are
known problems, these problems will take some time to fix.
I would wait 6 months and ask again.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>