On April 30, 2015 5:53:02 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 04/30/2015 01:58 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 30 April 2015 at 07:00, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 04/29/2015 02:01 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>> 2012-09-21 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> >>>> >>>> PR target/48904 >>>> * config.gcc (x86_64-*-knetbsd*-gnu): Add >i386/knetbsd-gnu64.h. >>>> * config/i386/knetbsd-gnu64.h: New file >>> >>> OK. Please install on the trunk. >> >> hmz, according to https://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/ the debian >> knetbsd port is abandoned since about 2002. >> If this is true (please confirm) then we should probably remove >knetbsd from >> - upstream config repo >> - GCC >> - binutils-gdb >> >> instead of the above patchlet. >> This would work equally well for me WRT config-list.mk builds.. >> [I should have checked this earlier, sorry..] >Given what Guillem indicated, I'd support removal. > >It's often the case that we mark it as deprecated and issue an explicit > >error if someone tries to build the port. That seems wise here.
I will apply the abovementioned patch ASAP and let somebody else with janitorial spare cleanup cycles propose removal of *-knetbsd-* then. Given previous discussion in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00582.html someone may also be in a position to remove *-openbsd3-* support, FWIW. I personally cannot take care of these due to limited (essentially non-existing ;) spare time. Same, BTW for Ultrix support which was officially removed from GCC last cycle, IIRC -- unless config entries are meant to be sticky from a GNU tool chain support POV per design/decision? Either way, cannot clean these up properly ATM and not familiar with those policies, so punting for now.. Cheers, > >jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/9ed04423-add6-43c7-be40-144832b4d...@gmail.com
