<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><div> Is there any interest in maintaining </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> 1) gcc/m3cg/parse.c support for gcc 4.3/4.5/4.6? </div><div>It is slightly messy.</div><div><br></div><div><br> 1b) gcc 4.2? This is where hypothetical ARM_DARWIN support is, last I checked, years ago. </div><div><br></div><div><br> 2) gcc-4.3/4.5/4.6 in-tree? </div><div><br></div><div><br> Or remove them to keep checkouts smaller? There was complaint as to our<br> source tree size, and these directories do add a lot of size for little gain. </div><div><br></div><div><br> They were historically useful to transition versions. I don't think it was wrong<br> to have the temporary growth. </div><div><br></div><div><br> All targets except for ARM_DARWIN default to gcc 4.7. </div><div><br></div><div><br> Do people often/ever go back and compare/debug?<br></div><div><br></div><div> Or want to retain that ability, with the current ease?<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> Or ok to get the files from history, for that rare-to-never event? </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> If we do maintain the gcc backend, I would likely import as gcc-5.1 etc., and recreate the problem, but<br> it can be a "rolling" problem and fix. But I'm not keen on maintaining the gcc backend anyway.</div><div><br></div><div><br> - Jay<br></div> </div></body>
</html>