On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 02:28:39PM +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> I suppose that the target blocks cleanups means maintaining it out-of-tree
> is not easily possible.
>
> IMO as there is interest in having the Itanium port in-tree and work is done
> when required (like enabling LRA) I see no reason for deprecating or removing
> the port. There are other unmaintained ports and frontends and IMO this
> looks like a double-standard to me.
>
> I do agree that posting testresults from trunk semi-regularly is an important
> sign of activity in addition to the bootstrap work folks are doing (but not
> so much visible).
Agreed.
Though for selective scheduling, can't we either remove it anyway (will ia64
work with normal scheduling? From what I can see selective scheduling
is defaulted there only for -O3) or limit solely to ia64? Because it is just
something completely unmaintained for years that just keeps being reported by
fuzzers for x86/aarch64 all the time and never fixed.
Jakub
