This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Removal of VAX/VMS support
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- Cc: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>, chris at groessler dot org,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 09:55:25 -0400
- Subject: Re: Removal of VAX/VMS support
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0307311028210.19470-100000@ds9.reckziegel.com> <3F291ABA.8030803@redhat.com> <200307311344.h6VDiwIE017363@envy.delorie.com> <20030801010035.GB27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:44:58AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> If no one is maintaining a target it should go.
I agree, but how do you know nobody is maintaining it?
Lack of an entry in binutils/MAINTAINERS.
BTW, GDB has up-to-date but unmaintained targets. This occures when
corporations [indirectly] fund individuals to perform the maintenance.
The individuals interest in the target never lasts longer than the next
pay cheque :-)
Consequently, GDB is using goal based criteria such as `it must be
multi-arch' . Targets are then given (a remarkably long) time to
upgrade. There is also an expectation that new targets meet such
criteria from day one.
I should emphasize that it is definitly carrot and stick - target
maintainers need to see a return on their effort. Requiring multi-arch
made possible things like i386 debugging on x86-64 (and made GDB in
general soo much easier). Frame unwinders made possible a robust DWARF2
CFI implementation (and fixes soo many bugs).
Andrew