[Fwd: Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals]

--- Begin Message --- Hi Joseph, > The following target architectures have seen no test results posted in > the past year: arc, c4x (as listed above), crx, iq2000, mt, pdp11, > score, stormy16, vax. Please do not deprecate the "crx" target. We are actively working on to update this target and

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 07:28:23PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > You can't cross-test, with DejaGnu running elsewhere? > > I've tried. The problem is communication between the DOS system (or > emulator) and the host system. DOS isn't kind to networking, > semaphores, or anything else that hint

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

Joseph S. Myers wrote: Following my proposal for target architecture deprecations in 4.3 , I now propose the following list of individual targets to deprecate, based on the same methodology previously described. The patch to remove c4x and depreca

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals (about DJGPP)

Ben Elliston wrote: On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 12:02 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: DJGPP, Please don't deprecate this. It's actively used, but the test harness doesn't run under DJGPP so testing it is difficult. I don't think we've *ever* run the testsuite for it. You can't cross-test, with DejaGnu

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > message was truncated because of the massive number of failures. > > Or massive number of multilibs :-) Let me humbly and pragmatically suggest testing with just the default multilib (or a much smaller subset than all you do) once in a while. Fixing te

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, DJ Delorie wrote: At the moment, I'm working on getting sh, h8300, and m32c in shape for 4.3 (or future). I can easily get the test results under 400k by removing some of the multilibs, but I don't think that's a good idea. My sh-elf test tests 38

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

Hi Joseph, I have posted some results for the xstormy16-elf target. They are not great (614 failures) but I do hope that this can target can be removed from the potential deprecations list. Cheers Nick

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 2008-01-23 12:57:00 +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I played a bit with it, so I can answer these questions myself: > Most specific questions: > > - What is the largest HDD SIMH supports? There seems to be RA92 > support, but that's only 1.5GB. With today's sof

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> message was truncated because of the massive number of failures. Or massive number of multilibs :-)

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:16:43PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > At the moment, I'm working on getting sh, h8300, and m32c in shape for > > 4.3 (or future). I can easily get the test results under 400k by > > removing some of the multilibs, but I don

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> I'm not actually convinced these long default multilib lists are a > good idea; If my goal was to write SH software, I'd agree. However, my goal is to try to get the port into shape, so a long list is useful. Internally, we use an even longer list, but the FSF sources don't support (by default

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, DJ Delorie wrote: > At the moment, I'm working on getting sh, h8300, and m32c in shape for > 4.3 (or future). I can easily get the test results under 400k by > removing some of the multilibs, but I don't think that's a good idea. > My sh-elf test tests 38 multilibs, if I only

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> Actively maintained targets need a maintainer doing enough work on > the results (fixing bugs and arranging for inapplicable tests to be > skipped or XFAILed) to get them down below that size. At the moment, I'm working on getting sh, h8300, and m32c in shape for 4.3 (or future). I can easily

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, DJ Delorie wrote: > "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Any target with test results posted to gcc-testresults within the > > past year, > > I did a test run of the sh-elf test results script. There are so many > multilibs that the email is 437 Kb long. Stil

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Any target with test results posted to gcc-testresults within the > past year, I did a test run of the sh-elf test results script. There are so many multilibs that the email is 437 Kb long. Still want it as-is? Summary attached.

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Paul Koning wrote: > > "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Joseph> ... There is good coverage for > Joseph> bare-metal ELF targets, but none for bare-metal a.out and > Joseph> COFF targets (perhaps we should consider deprecating all of > Joseph

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joseph> ... There is good coverage for Joseph> bare-metal ELF targets, but none for bare-metal a.out and Joseph> COFF targets (perhaps we should consider deprecating all of Joseph> those, on the presumption that bare-metal use has m

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:06:52PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > Of the others: arc, crx, iq2000, mt, pdp11, stormy16, I see no recent > testing or development. Joern Rennecke was intending to improve ARC > support but is listed as "Waiting for paperwork" in MAINTAINERS; is > there any news o

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 2008-01-23 14:39:37 +, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * vax-*-bsd* > * vax-*-sysv* > * vax-*-ultrix* I'll start looking into the NetBSD target. There are other bits (OpenBSD and the non-BSD targets) but I won't work on those. It'll take some time to get the environment ri

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

IIRC, the problem was in syncronizing *anything* between the Linux host and the DOS emulator. It's like trying to use NFS to syncronize two Xen instances, except with a flakey NFS and programs that don't know about concurrency. With Cygwin and DJGPP you have the problem of long command lines bei

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > There is good coverage for > bare-metal ELF targets, but none for bare-metal a.out and COFF targets > (perhaps we should consider deprecating all of those, on the > presumption that bare-metal use has moved to ELF and objcopy is likely > to be used in a

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:34:56AM +1100, Ben Elliston wrote: > > I've tried. The problem is communication between the DOS system (or > > emulator) and the host system. DOS isn't kind to networking, > > semaphores, or anything else that hints at multiprocessing. > > If you're trying to at least

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> If you're trying to at least test code generation, etc., you could > treat the DOS system like a basic target board and cross-compile > tests and transfer them over a serial line to execute them. That's > the way it was done in the bad old days. Yeah, I remember those. > However, it's just oc

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> I've tried. The problem is communication between the DOS system (or > emulator) and the host system. DOS isn't kind to networking, > semaphores, or anything else that hints at multiprocessing. If you're trying to at least test code generation, etc., you could treat the DOS system like a basic

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> You can't cross-test, with DejaGnu running elsewhere? I've tried. The problem is communication between the DOS system (or emulator) and the host system. DOS isn't kind to networking, semaphores, or anything else that hints at multiprocessing.

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 12:02 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > DJGPP, > > Please don't deprecate this. It's actively used, but the test harness > doesn't run under DJGPP so testing it is difficult. I don't think > we've *ever* run the testsuite for it. You can't cross-test, with DejaGnu running else

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > Well the IQ2000 port is still of interest to us, and I am still happy > to maintain it, so here are some test results: On that basis I've removed it from my deprecation list, but results need to go to gcc-testresults in the form gene

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

Hi Joseph, Well the IQ2000 port is still of interest to us, and I am still happy to maintain it, so here are some test results: Test Run By nickc on Wed Jan 23 10:37:48 2008 Target is iq2000-unknown-elf Host is i686-pc-linux-gnu === gcc tests === Schedule of variations:

RE: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> -Original Message- > From: Manuel López-Ibáñez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:35 AM > To: Weddington, Eric > Cc: Andrew Haley; NightStrike; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals > > On 23/0

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, DJ Delorie wrote: > > DJGPP, > > Please don't deprecate this. It's actively used, but the test harness > doesn't run under DJGPP so testing it is difficult. I don't think > we've *ever* run the testsuite for it. > > > s390x-ibm-tpf* > > Similar. TPF is cross, and there's

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> * parisc*-*-*, alias for hppa*-*-*. Also apparently an unused alias > handled by config.gcc that should move to config.sub if desired. I'm happy to see this go. It's not checked for in the testsuite, etc. > HP-UX is only being tested on hppa, not IA64. I believe that Steve Ellcey is testin

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If config.sub already converts them to m68k, so that m680[012]0 never > appears in a canonical target name, then the code in config.gcc looking > for m680[012]0 in canonical target names is already dead. The proposed > alias deprecations relate o

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> DJGPP, Please don't deprecate this. It's actively used, but the test harness doesn't run under DJGPP so testing it is difficult. I don't think we've *ever* run the testsuite for it. > s390x-ibm-tpf* Similar. TPF is cross, and there's no simulators, so no test results, yet still active. >

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Andreas Schwab wrote: > "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * m680[012]0-*-* aliases for m68k-*-*. I see no activity using these > > aliases and they appear fully equivalent to --with-cpu options that > > already exist; anyone wishing the continue to use

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On 23/01/2008, Weddington, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been lurking on this list long enough to see the same questions, with > the same answers, every time the subject of target deprecations comes up. > > If it doesn't exist somewhere already, can the criteria that Joseph used be > s

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * m680[012]0-*-* aliases for m68k-*-*. I see no activity using these > aliases and they appear fully equivalent to --with-cpu options that > already exist; anyone wishing the continue to use them can move them > to config.sub and make config.g

RE: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> -Original Message- > From: Andrew Haley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:19 AM > To: Manuel López-Ibáñez > Cc: NightStrike; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals > > > I agree that weighing the

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

Following my proposal for target architecture deprecations in 4.3 , I now propose the following list of individual targets to deprecate, based on the same methodology previously described. The patch to remove c4x and deprecate the previously discuss

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 2008-01-23 12:18:31 +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-22 10:31:35 -0800, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So if you're a vax user, you can help keep the vax port alive by helping > > to test it, reporting bugs, and testing proposed fixes. That's n

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 2008-01-23 12:09:10 +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do have a crude patch to ELFify the assembly parts. However, This was ment to be attached... MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-172-7608481 Signature of: Ich ha

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Tue, 2008-01-22 10:31:35 -0800, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:49:19AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > >I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax. > > >The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part > > >of the d

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Tue, 2008-01-22 13:22:51 +, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax. > > > The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part > > > of the deprecation

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Mon, 2008-01-21 22:55:26 -0800, Matt Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 21, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Ben Elliston wrote: > > My understanding is that NetBSD port to the vax is very much alive and > > maintained. Thus, I expect that those users (eg Matt Thomas) would > > like > > to see the G

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 15:06 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > I agree that weighing the user base doesn't make any practical sense. > But I can't understand the reason for removing something that works > fine because it may rot in the future. Every port, working or not, imposes a certain amount

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 写于 01/22/2008 03:06:52 AM: > The following target architectures have seen no test results posted in > the past year: arc, c4x (as listed above), crx, iq2000, mt, pdp11, > score, stormy16, vax. Of these targets, score appears to be actively > maintained; I sug

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:01:55AM +1100, Ben Elliston wrote: > > My understanding is that NetBSD port to the vax is very much alive and > > maintained. Thus, I expect that those users (eg Matt Thomas) would like > > to see the GCC port retained. > > How can we encourage the NetBSD folks to par

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> Neither, actually. It's tester base that counts the most. I had a discussion with Jan-Benedict Glaw last night about this. He has been working on a linux port. He said: > The damn thing is that we need a working kernel + userland. Irrelevant > of the actual operating system. Maybe it would b

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:49:19AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > >I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax. > >The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part > >of the deprecation requirements take into account user base, or just > >developer ba

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

Dave Korn wrote: On 22 January 2008 14:06, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: I note the lack of anyone posting test results for uClinux, OpenBSD or RTEMS, and suggest that users of those operating systems should try to post test results for at least some target architectures. Sorry. For RTE

RE: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On 22 January 2008 14:06, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > I agree that weighing the user base doesn't make any practical sense. > But I can't understand the reason for removing something that works > fine because it may rot in the future. It's particularly with the lack of test results that that

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 22/01/2008, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: NightStrike wrote: I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax. The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part of the deprecation requirements take into account user

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On 22/01/2008, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NightStrike wrote: > > > > I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax. > > The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part > > of the deprecation requirements take into account user base, or jus

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

NightStrike wrote: On 1/21/08, John David Anglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The following target architectures have seen no test results posted in the past year: arc, c4x (as listed above), crx, iq2000, mt, pdp11, score, stormy16, vax. Regarding vax, I don't have the time to maintain it. HPPA

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax. > > The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part > > of the deprecation requirements take into account user base, or just > > developer base? > > Neither, a

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Matt Thomas wrote: > We would. I have gcc working with gcc4.3 but gcc's use mpfr/gmp has made > native test impossible since neither work on vax/elf. I don't have time > to make them work. They don't work even with --host=none-unknown-netbsdelf to use the generic C code in

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 04:06 -0500, NightStrike wrote: > I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax. > The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part > of the deprecation requirements take into account user base, or just > developer base? What GCC ve

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax. The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part of the deprecation requirements take into account user base, or just developer base? Neither, actually. It's tester base that counts the most. Paolo

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On 1/21/08, John David Anglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The following target architectures have seen no test results posted in > > the past year: arc, c4x (as listed above), crx, iq2000, mt, pdp11, > > score, stormy16, vax. > > Regarding vax, I don't have the time to maintain it. HPPA has tak

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> For reference, the last test results posted for either of these seem to be > yours last July, so given your deprecation proposal we can take it there > is no evidence of current GCC users for these platforms at present. If > these targets are removed, I believe we can remove > --enable-threa

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

Joseph S. Myers wrote: Of the others: arc, crx, iq2000, mt, pdp11, stormy16, I see no recent testing or development. Joern Rennecke was intending to improve ARC I have no objection to mt. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell:: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Jan 21, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Ben Elliston wrote: I didn't propose it for removal because of a single patch reported to have been tested on vax-netbsdelf. If the maintainers wish to propose deprecation and no-one else wishes to come f

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> > I didn't propose it for removal because of a single patch > > reported to have > > been tested on vax-netbsdelf. If the maintainers wish to propose > > deprecation and no-one else wishes to come forward to maintain it, we can > > c

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> I didn't propose it for removal because of a single patch > reported to have > been tested on vax-netbsdelf. If the maintainers wish to propose > deprecation and no-one else wishes to come forward to maintain it, we can > certainly in

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > People may also make their own proposals for deprecations, including > > relating to targets which have had results posted in the past year, > > and including deprecations of particular subconfigurations (e.g. using > > a particular target without the

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, John David Anglin wrote: > There is still a small amount of vax related activity but I don't > expect the GCC port to be actively maintained. The community is too > small. So, I think it is reasonable to consider it for removal. > I recall in the last go around that some peo

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

>> The following target architectures have seen no test results >> posted in the past year: arc, c4x (as listed above), crx, iq2000, >> mt, pdp11, score, stormy16, vax. Thanks David. I fixed my gcc list subscriptions which had become lost at some point due to malfunctions of internal mailers.

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> People may also make their own proposals for deprecations, including > relating to targets which have had results posted in the past year, > and including deprecations of particular subconfigurations (e.g. using > a particular target without the GNU assembler, or with a particular > debug format)

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> The following target architectures have seen no test results posted in > the past year: arc, c4x (as listed above), crx, iq2000, mt, pdp11, > score, stormy16, vax. Regarding vax, I don't have the time to maintain it. HPPA has taken all my free time in the past year. I probably should remove my

GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

No targets have been deprecated since 4.0, so it seems time to consider deprecating unused targets again. The usual procedure would apply: targets would require --enable-obsolete to build them in 4.3, then the code (and docs, testsuite support etc.) would be removed some time after 4.3.0 is releas