https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #47 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #35) > > 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. > > Do you IBM guys have a hidden agenda to bury the left-overs of Freescale? ;-) > > The SPE port has already been moved out of the way so I don't really see the > point in further hammering it like that; there are plenty of obsolete ports > in the tree that would have to removed before this one if the above > criterion was followed to the letter. This is not about IBM. Believe it or not, but the rs6000 port maintainers *care* about older systems. I wanted to obsolete SPE support because it is a big burden, not in small part because no one maintains it. This has been going on for years and years. Big pushback; people still want SPE, they just don't want to spend work on it. Well neither do we, it's been enough. So I spent a week splitting off the port (also tested removing VSX etc.; removing unused code does not take that long; I just have no way to *test* it so that was not included). It was agreed the powerpcspe port would be maintained or it would be removed. Now a year later GCC 8 is on the horizon, and the powerpcspe port is still not maintained. And the RMs decided to give it *another* year: it is not removed but merely obsoleted.
