From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from www.llwyncelyn.cymru ([82.70.14.225]:55616 "EHLO fuzix.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751317AbeBWPom (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2018 10:44:42 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:43:16 +0000 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support Message-ID: <20180223154316.35b26857@alans-desktop> In-Reply-To: References: <20180222234833.GA3047@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Guenter Roeck , linux-arch , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Richard Kuo , linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Chen Liqin , Lennox Wu , Guan Xuetao , Al Viro , James Hogan , linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, Jonas Bonn , Stefan Kristiansson , Stafford Horne , openrisc@lists.librecores.org, David Howells > 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