On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 12:41 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 08/18/2015 11:11 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Oleg Endo <oleg.e...@t-online.de> > > wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Kaz and I have been discussing the SH5/SH64 status, which is part > >> of the SH port, every now and then. To our knowledge, there is no > >> real hardware available as of today and we don't think there are > >> any real users for a SH5/SH64 toolchain out there. Moreover, the > >> SH5/SH64 parts of the SH port haven't been touched by anybody for a > >> long time. The only exception is occasional ad-hoc fixes for bug > >> reports from people who build GCC for every architecture that is > >> listed in the Linux kernel. However, we don't actually know > >> whether code compiled for SH5/SH64 still runs at an acceptable > >> level since nobody has been doing any testing for that architecture > >> for a while now. > >> > >> If there are no objections, we would like to deprecate SH5/SH64 > >> support as of GCC 6. > >> > >> Initially this would include an announcement on the changes page > >> and the removal of any documentation related to SH5/SH64. After > >> GCC 6 we might start removing configure options and the respective > >> code paths in the target. > > > > +1 > Works for me based on what I've heard independently about sh5 hardware > situation. > > > Frankly, I think we should be more aggressive about this kind of > port/variant pruning across the board.
I have committed the announcement for the GCC 6 page https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg01516.html Cheers, Oleg
