Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-16 07:49]: > > But as you know, most gcc ports are never contributed anyhow. Ports > > that people hire Red Hat to do are contributed, but I can easily > > count six gcc ports I've seen myself that were never contributed. > > Can you list those six ports? Has anyone tried to talk to those > people to get them to contribute?
C2 Microsystems Jazz C2 Microsystems ENE Cray X-2 Cradle Technologies DSE A processor from a Japanese company which I have forgotten, maybe Toshiba and, OK, I thought I had seen six but now I can only remember five There are also routinely messages on gcc-help referring to private ports which I have not seen myself. The truth is, there is no real advantage to anybody for these ports to be contributed. They often have machine specific changes to the machine independent parts of gcc, which would have to be managed somehow. These are not popular processors. Nobody outside the manufacturer has the knowledge or interest to maintain the backends. We've seen plenty of cases where a backend was contributed and then dropped a couple of years later. These would just be more of the same. Ian
