This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Deprecating and removing old targets
On 2016-09-14, at 3:11 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> On 13 Sep 2016, at 18:26, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>> We might consider dropping hppa-som, which is an HPUX 32 bit only object
>>> format. We'd keep ELF for the linux port.
>>
>> Which would suggest obsoleting 32-bit hppa-hpux support in GCC
>> (install.texi says "We require using gas/binutils on all hppa
>> platforms.").
>
> hppa-hpux deprecation in gcc was already suggested.
> But I think John David Anglin (in CC:) still maintain it. Is that correct ?
Yes. I am currently maintaining hppa-hpux11 and hppa-linux in gcc and binutils. hpux10 and earlier
could be deprecated. Regarding gdb, I wasn't aware of its removal until it was done. Still, I was able to reinstall
the removed code and do an updated build a few weeks ago. In a little over a year, nothing major had changed
to core infrastructure.
Test results hpux11.11 are regularly posted to gcc-testresults. In my opinion, the target is more functional than it
has ever been. I have always viewed the hpux support as essential to the linux support. In particular, there is no
way to test hppa64 on linux and we need it for linux kernel builds.
Functionally, the main difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit hpux support is libffi. It has not been ported to 64-bit.
Test results are pretty similar and most of the SOM limitations have been worked around. We do need collect2
for constructor support.
On Debian ports, we are near the top in the installed number of packages:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=hppa&suite=sid
Our package count has been slowly growing as bugs are fixed. Indeed, ia64 is in worse shape than hppa due to
lack of maintainers.
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.anglin@bell.net