[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180223154316.35b26857@alans-desktop>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:43:16 +0000
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, Chen Liqin <liqin.linux@...il.com>,
Lennox Wu <lennox.wu@...il.com>,
Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>, linux-metag@...r.kernel.org,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support
> Regarding the older architectures I mentioned (m32r, frv, mn10300),
> the situation is a bit different as they don't have the problems with
> build testing but they do have problems with using less of the
> standard interfaces (syscall, timer, gpio, rtc, ...), so they do add
> more to the maintenance burden without the nostalgia value of
> some of the even older architectures (parisc, alpha, m68k, ia64)
> that people maintain mainly for fun.
IMHO the magic word is 'maintain'. If someone is actively maintaining it
then I don't think we should care too much, if not then while the code
may be buildable on current systems does anyone honestly think it works
properly if used in anger ?
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists