On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:43 PM Andrew Pinski via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > Here is the list of ports without a maintainer in MAINTAINERS with some > extra information on when the last time the port was touched for non > infrastructure changes: > epiphany - Jeff Law and Jakub Jelinek did a fix each in 2024 before > that Joern Rennecke did a fix in 2016 > m32c - Last fix done by Bernd Edlinger in Jan 2015 > rl78 - Last fix done by Jeff Law in October 2018 > ia64 - LRA enabled in 2024 before that the last fixes were in 2020 > > I think we agreed on making ia64 obsolete, what about the other 3? > > I think we should have a requirement of the bare minimum for a port is a > maintainer. > I also vote to have a testresults for the target at least once a year.
Having testresults also shows the port builds (as a cross at least) and is able to build its target libraries. IMO broken ports are worse than unmaintained ones, esp. if we release with those. Ideally we'd have build bots with publically visible results that test the building part (doesn't have to run often), this should include building cross-binutils, newlib/glibc/avr-libc as fit. Before releasing I'd auto-deprecate all broken configs, I'd expect maintainers to analyze such failures (they might be bot issues). Having testresults would be secondary (but nice), that includes running the runtimes testsuite. That said, I'd like to move away from gcc-testresults as a vetting tool to something more modern. Possibly a good(?) GSoC project, set up github CI runners for this? Richard. > > Thanks, > Andrew Pinski
