Home Original page

target removal

Alan Modra amodra@gmail.com
Thu Apr 12 01:14:00 GMT 2018 
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:31:22AM +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:29:16 +0930
> > From: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
> 
> > Hi Hans-Peter,
> 
> Hi!
> 
> > I'm going through the targets obsoleted a long time ago, and removing
> > support.  i860, i960, bout and adobe have already disappeared, and I
> > have local patches to remove tahoe, i370, netware, newsos3 and
> > tandem.  The next on my list was ieee, but I see you include ieee_vec
> > for cris.  That's going to disappear.  Objections?
> 
> Nope.  IIRC it was included only because it seemed like a good
> idea at the time, but I haven't heard of it being used in
> practice.

Thanks for the quick reply.

> JFTR, I'm *not* answering regarding whether it's a good idea to
> remove "support for ieee" (and I didn't bother to verify the
> "face value" of that), just the connection to CRIS sub-targets.

Heh.  Well the idea is to remove include/ieee.h, bfd/ieee.c,
bfd/libieee.h, binutils/ieee.c, gas/config/atof-ieee.c not just the
configuration.  ie. I'll be removing support for the IEEE 695 object
format, a format that didn't gain wide acceptance and as far as I'm
aware is virtually dead nowadays.  That means less files to edit on
global BFD changes, reducing the maintenance burden a little.  Plus
it's quite likely that someone wanting to play with retro systems
using IEEE 695 is better off using retro binutils.  There's a high
likelihood the IEEE 695 support has bitrotted.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
More information about the Binutils mailing list