<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>By "gcc obsolete targets", I meant that latest gcc might not target systems that we can/do.</div><div>Not that gcc versions are no longer maintained.</div><div> Maybe not all that interesting.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>We had surprisingly recent usage on OSF/1 v4.0. I had wanted to get Irix working. And AIX</div><div>and I had an older system.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, I forgot about this part of it, and we could target</div><div>them with the C backend instead of gcc. Or make current gcc work.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The size is better now?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> - Jay<br><br><br><br></div><div>> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:10:07 +0200<br>> From: adacore@marino.st<br>> To: jay.krell@cornell.edu; m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Are all 5 gcc branches used?<br>> <br>> On 6/3/2015 20:04, Jay K wrote:<br>> > If gcc obsoletes targets we want to keep, we could keep the old<br>> > versions. Not super useful given our usage levels.<br>> <br>> It has. gcc-4.7 is a closed branch. Only gcc 4.8 and later are not<br>> obsolete by that definition, so all 5 of these are obsolete.<br>> <br>> I would definitely encourage to prune as many of these as possible. I<br>> could probably challenge OpenBSD as well, e.g. Assuming you saying "4.2"<br>> based on the base compiler, why are you assuming it must be built by<br>> base compiler?<br>> <br>> By definition, the base compiler is only required to build base. There<br>> are much newer and well maintained versions of gcc in openbsd ports<br>> tree. There's no reason a ports compiler couldn't be used (I assume<br>> this is actually common).<br>> <br>> > Try xz instead of gzip, maybe it halves the size?<br>> <br>> I can't influence github's API. It is what it is.<br>> <br>> John<br></div> </div></body>
</html>