FYI: GCC dropped score support

FYI: GCC dropped score support

[Pedro Alves]

While the deprecation theme is playing in the background ...

I noticed that GCC has just removed support for score:

 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00305.html

I'm looking at score-tdep.c/score-tdep.h and wondering if
it makes any sense to still maintain that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%2Bcore

Thanks,
Pedro Alves

Re: FYI: GCC dropped score support

[Joel Brobecker]

> While the deprecation theme is playing in the background ...
> 
> I noticed that GCC has just removed support for score:
> 
>  https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00305.html
> 
> I'm looking at score-tdep.c/score-tdep.h and wondering if
> it makes any sense to still maintain that...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%2Bcore

Thinking out loud...

If the port isn't getting in the way, perhaps we could send out
a quick deprecation warning announce following our standard protocol;
but instead of actually removing support right away, we'd just
keep it on a best-effort basis? I'm not actually sure this is
a good idea at all, as not receiving any response today does not
mean that people might not be starting using it again tomorrow...

So, unless we think there is enough benefit in remove support for
this target sooner rather than later, the other option is to keep
the info you about GCC in mind if it ever starts getting in the way?

-- 
Joel

Re: FYI: GCC dropped score support

[Stan Shebs]

On 10/6/14, 4:36 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> While the deprecation theme is playing in the background ...
>>
>> I noticed that GCC has just removed support for score:
>>
>>  https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00305.html
>>
>> I'm looking at score-tdep.c/score-tdep.h and wondering if
>> it makes any sense to still maintain that...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%2Bcore
> 
> Thinking out loud...
> 
> If the port isn't getting in the way, perhaps we could send out
> a quick deprecation warning announce following our standard protocol;
> but instead of actually removing support right away, we'd just
> keep it on a best-effort basis? I'm not actually sure this is
> a good idea at all, as not receiving any response today does not
> mean that people might not be starting using it again tomorrow...
> 
> So, unless we think there is enough benefit in remove support for
> this target sooner rather than later, the other option is to keep
> the info you about GCC in mind if it ever starts getting in the way?
> 

It seems pretty dead, the company's pages are 404, and the only
product I can find that used it was the Mattel HyperScan, introduced in
2006 and discontinued in 2008 - apparently it made PC World's "10 Worst
Videogames of All Time" list.

Even if the code isn't being used, I think it still costs us, in the
sense that we have to think about whether it needs changing, it has
to be patchedwhen there are global changes, and so forth.  So I
think we should whack it soon as decently possible.  (Of course, the
code will actually live on forever, in old releases and repos. :-) )

Stan
stan@codesourcery.com

Re: FYI: GCC dropped score support

[Joel Brobecker]

> It seems pretty dead, the company's pages are 404, and the only
> product I can find that used it was the Mattel HyperScan, introduced in
> 2006 and discontinued in 2008 - apparently it made PC World's "10 Worst
> Videogames of All Time" list.
> 
> Even if the code isn't being used, I think it still costs us, in the
> sense that we have to think about whether it needs changing, it has
> to be patchedwhen there are global changes, and so forth.  So I
> think we should whack it soon as decently possible.  (Of course, the
> code will actually live on forever, in old releases and repos. :-) )

Seen under this light, it does make sense!

-- 
Joel

Re: FYI: GCC dropped score support

[Pedro Alves]

On 10/07/2014 01:18 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> It seems pretty dead, the company's pages are 404, and the only
>> product I can find that used it was the Mattel HyperScan, introduced in
>> 2006 and discontinued in 2008 - apparently it made PC World's "10 Worst
>> Videogames of All Time" list.

Eh.  :-)

>> Even if the code isn't being used, I think it still costs us, in the
>> sense that we have to think about whether it needs changing, it has
>> to be patchedwhen there are global changes, and so forth.  So I
>> think we should whack it soon as decently possible.  (Of course, the
>> code will actually live on forever, in old releases and repos. :-) )
> 
> Seen under this light, it does make sense!

Agreed, that's my thinking too.  For still-fresh examples, the software
single-step rework work had me stop, think and actually write patches
for IRIX (deprecated_insert_raw_breakpoint).  And then just last week
I failed to notice some code was for Tru64 and wasted time writing
this patch:
  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-10/msg00035.html

Thanks,
Pedro Alves