Hi Richard Biener and Robert Dewar, Thanks for the fast response, I really appreciate it! I'll look into gcc-testresults for an i386, now that I know it's a requirement to keep a port live.
I compile, and run, RTEMS for the pc386 RTEMS target regularly, so I know the 4.7 cross-compiler does that much, but I'll look into the gcc-testresults suite. Below are some links that would be helpful for anyone is interested in helping out with a different architecture live on gcc as well. gcc-testresults for RTEMS http://www.rtems.org/wiki/index.php/ToolStatus#GCC_Test_Results gcc-testresults for a cross-compiler http://gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html Perhaps gcc-testing could be added to what an intern does to "get started" as part of Google Summer of Code for RTEMS? What else would be required to keep a target gcc port live? Thanks, Cynthia Rempel ________________________________________ From: Richard Biener [richard.guent...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 1:09 PM To: Robert Dewar Cc: Cynthia Rempel; gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Please don't deprecate i386 for GCC 4.8 On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Robert Dewar <de...@adacore.com> wrote: > On 12/14/2012 3:13 PM, Cynthia Rempel wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> RTEMS still supports the i386, and there are many i386 machines still >> in use. Deprecating the i386 will negatively impact RTEMS ability to >> support the i386. As Steven Bosscher said, the "benefits" are small, >> and the impact would be serious for RTEMS i386 users. > > Since there is a significant maintenance burden for such continued > support, I guess a question to ask is whether the RTEMS folks or > someone using RTEMS are willing to step in and shoulder this burden. Btw, while I see very sporadical testresults for arm-rtems and older results for v850 and sparc and powerpc-rtems testresult posting on gcc-testresults no such results exist for i386-rtems in 2012 which means it's current status is in the dark. If you want a port to be live show that it is live by posting regular testresults to gcc-testresults. Thanks, Richard.
