https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #32 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de> --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #31) > It would have been announced in gcc-7/changes.html (linked from the > announcement on gcc-announce@, I do hope you read that?), but instead of > obsoleting SPE support in the rs6000 port we split off the powerpcspe port, > which was promised to be maintained. Now that that does not seem to be > happening, it will be obsoleted anyway. Andrew said he is still working on it. That is not the same as saying the promise is not going to be kept. gcc isn't a trivial project after all and that work can take some time. > Someone needs to do the work. Sure. I understand that and I am not denying that. But I don't see that this particular port is broken as it is claimed here. Otherwise it wouldn't work for Debian at all, would it? > > We have users who are using Debian on these targets, even on m68k because > > retro computing is very popular around that CPU. > > m68k needs some serious work, too, in the not far future (if the cc0 removal > finally goes through -- that has been over ten years now). Yes, I am aware of that. But there are enough people interested in such work so I think we will be able get around doing that at some point. > > So, I think it would be fair if important upstream projects like gcc could > > send a message to downstream projects like Debian in such cases, to give at > > least users of certain ports a notice if there are any concerns upstream. > > Read gcc-announce@. It's what it is for. Only a few posts per year :-) Ok, I will be subscribing to that one. > > > GCC backends need active maintainance, including regular testing, > > > reporting > > > regressions and fixing those, otherwise they are only significant burden > > > to > > > other maintainers and not really useful to users. > > > > I am aware of that. But the thing is, the backend in question works fine at > > the moment. I would agree with your stance if we were seeing any serious > > issues with it. But that's currently not the case, so I don't understand > > this particular action. > > > > Is there anything specific bug that blocks things at the moment that we are > > missing downstream? > > A port does not need maintenance only for that port, and its users, but also > for GCC itself. All ports are a cost to _all_ GCC developers. If a port is > not maintained it has to be removed. So, again my question is: What exactly is the with the powerpcspe target at the moment and why does upstream claim the port is broken when it apparently works for us in Debian? Am I missing something? I understand where you are coming from and I know that maintenance needs manpower. However, gcc isn't just any project, it's probably the core project besides the kernel. If you remove a target in gcc, you are killing that target for everyone and that is a problem for its users. And probably the biggest advantage of gcc over LLVM is the plethora of targets it supports. If you are going to ax most of it so that only the targets of commercial relevance would survive - i.e. x86, ARM, s390 and POWER8+ - you will be loosing one of the biggest selling points of gcc.
