When to remove old targets?

When to remove old targets?

[Joel Sherrill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 226 bytes --]

Hi

As the clean up patches for libgloss are coming by, I've checked a few to
see when they disappeared from GCC. At least the i960 and mn10200 have been
out of GCC for over a decade.

When should newlib remove them?


--joel

Can newlib drop old i960 and mn10200 targets?

[Brian Inglis]

On 2023-12-26 22:47, Joel Sherrill wrote:

> As the clean up patches for libgloss are coming by, I've checked a few to see 
> when they disappeared from GCC. At least the i960 and mn10200 have been out of 
> GCC for over a decade.
> When should newlib remove them?

Maybe ask directly, as in subject, and in body ask, if not, when?

Is anyone still using old i960 target?
If not then could it be dropped after this year's snapshot?
If it can not be dropped now, when can it be dropped?

Is anyone still using old mn10200 target?
If not then could it be dropped after this year's snapshot?
If it can not be dropped now, when can it be dropped?

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis              Calgary, Alberta, Canada

La perfection est atteinte                   Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter  not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer     but when there is no more to cut
                                 -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Re: Can newlib drop old i960 and mn10200 targets?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1119 bytes --]

On 27 Dec 2023 10:07, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2023-12-26 22:47, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > As the clean up patches for libgloss are coming by, I've checked a few to see 
> > when they disappeared from GCC. At least the i960 and mn10200 have been out of 
> > GCC for over a decade.
> > When should newlib remove them?
> 
> Maybe ask directly, as in subject, and in body ask, if not, when?

as Joel said, there are more targets than just those two.  i don't know that
debating them individually makes much sense.  having an agreed upon policy
and then seeing which arches it applies to is much easier.  if someone comes
out of the woodwork for a specific target and steps up to support it, then
maybe it can be postponed, but they'd be listed as a maintainer, and have to
respond to issues for it.

cr16 was dropped for the gcc-13 release.
crx was dropped for the gcc-4.7 release.
d30v was dropped for the gcc-4.0 release.
m68hc11 was dropped for the gcc-4.7 release.
mep was dropped for the gcc-7 release.
spu was dropped for the gcc-10 release.
xc16x has never been merged into gcc afaict.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]