From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15642 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2012 18:58:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 15621 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Mar 2012 18:58:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yw0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.213.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:57:59 +0000 Received: by yhjj56 with SMTP id j56so3131349yhj.20 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:57:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.170.134 with SMTP id p6mr14324985yhl.81.1331578678359; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.88.7 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:57:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <43D69F8C-3FCE-4915-A211-6F04466DB8CB@comcast.net> References: <43D69F8C-3FCE-4915-A211-6F04466DB8CB@comcast.net> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Remove obsolete Solaris 8 support From: Steven Bosscher To: Mike Stump Cc: Rainer Orth , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Eric Botcazou , Ian Lance Taylor Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-q1/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Mar 12, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: >> Since even extended support for Solaris 8 ends by March 31st, this patch >> removes Solaris 8 support from mainline. > > One of the nice things about gcc is that gcc usually still works, long af= ter a vendor has abandoned a machine. =A0I rather like that gcc will just w= ork, unlike vendor software, which often says, please buy a new machine. = =A0One doesn't have to remove support in gcc for something, just because a = vendor doesn't support it. =A0That said, truly crufty things, should go. Personally, I'd be in favor of removing any target for which no test results have been posted for the last, say, 2 GCC release series. Otherwise there isn't any measure for the quality for such a target. There've been GCC release series where a complete port failed to build... Ciao! Steven