Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Stan Shebs]

GNU support for MPW (Macintosh Programmer's Workshop) stopped working
some years ago, and has long since been flushed from GCC and GDB. So
I'm going to save everybody some disk space and remove the support bits
from the rest of src/, starting with this patch to the top level,
preapproved by DJ. (If a binutils maintainer would like to preapprove
the necessary binutils patches, that would be efficient.)

Stan

2004-03-24  Stan Shebs  <shebs@apple.com>

        Remove MPW support, no longer used.
        * mpw-README, mpw-build.in, mpw-config.in, mpw-configure,
        mpw-install: Remove files.
        * src-release (DEVO_SUPPORT): Remove names of removed files.
        * MAINTAINERS: Likewise.

Index: MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/MAINTAINERS,v
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -p -r1.21 MAINTAINERS
*** MAINTAINERS 23 Aug 2003 08:51:04 -0000      1.21
--- MAINTAINERS 25 Mar 2004 01:42:45 -0000
*************** winsup/
*** 100,107 ****
        General discussion cygwin@sources.redhat.com.
        See also winsup/MAINTAINERS.
 
! expect/; config-ml.in; mpw-README; mpw-build.in; mpw-config.in;
! mpw-configure; mpw-install; setup.com; missing; makefile.vms; utils/;
  config/; config.if; makefile.vms; missing; ylwrap; mkdep; etc/;
  install-sh; intl/
        Ask DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> after reading the libiberty entry.
--- 100,106 ----
        General discussion cygwin@sources.redhat.com.
        See also winsup/MAINTAINERS.
 
! expect/; config-ml.in; setup.com; missing; makefile.vms; utils/;
  config/; config.if; makefile.vms; missing; ylwrap; mkdep; etc/;
  install-sh; intl/
        Ask DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> after reading the libiberty entry.
Index: src-release
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/src-release,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -p -r1.10 src-release
*** src-release 28 Feb 2004 21:52:04 -0000      1.10
--- src-release 25 Mar 2004 01:42:46 -0000
*************** PWD = $${PWDCMD-pwd}
*** 45,51 ****
  # distribution (perhaps it would be better to include it anyway).
  DEVO_SUPPORT= README Makefile.in configure configure.in \
        config.guess config.if config.sub config move-if-change \
-       mpw-README mpw-build.in mpw-config.in mpw-configure mpw-install \
        COPYING COPYING.LIB install-sh config-ml.in symlink-tree \
        mkinstalldirs ltconfig ltmain.sh missing ylwrap \
        libtool.m4 gettext.m4 ltcf-c.sh ltcf-cxx.sh ltcf-gcj.sh \
--- 45,50 ----

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com> writes:

> GNU support for MPW (Macintosh Programmer's Workshop) stopped working
> some years ago, and has long since been flushed from GCC and GDB. So
> I'm going to save everybody some disk space and remove the support bits
> from the rest of src/, starting with this patch to the top level,
> preapproved by DJ. (If a binutils maintainer would like to preapprove
> the necessary binutils patches, that would be efficient.)

By all means.  Preapproved for binutils.  Thanks.

Remember that libiberty bits should go into the gcc repository first
or simultaneously.  Those bits are also pre-approved (if DJ didn't
already approve them).

Ian

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Jason Molenda]

On Mar 24, 2004, at 5:45 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:

> I'm going to save everybody some disk space and remove the support bits
> from the rest of src/, starting with this patch to the top level,
> preapproved by DJ.

I'm sure you already knew this, but you'll need to update the cvs 
modules for the repository at the same time you're doing this - these 
files are explicitly named in there:

src-support  -a src/.cvsignore src/COPYING src/COPYING.LIB 
src/COPYING.NEWLIB
              src/COPYING.LIBGLOSS src/ChangeLog src/MAINTAINERS
              src/Makefile.def src/Makefile.in src/Makefile.tpl 
src/README
              src/README-maintainer-mode src/config src/config-ml.in
              src/config.guess src/config.if src/config.sub src/configure
              src/configure.in src/contrib src/etc src/gettext.m4 
src/install-sh
              src/libtool.m4 src/ltcf-c.sh src/ltcf-cxx.sh 
src/ltcf-gcj.sh
              src/ltconfig src/ltmain.sh src/makefile.vms src/missing 
src/mkdep
              src/mkinstalldirs src/move-if-change src/mpw-README
              src/mpw-build.in src/mpw-config.in src/mpw-configure
              src/mpw-install src/setup.com src/src-release 
src/symlink-tree
              src/ylwrap


This means that someone checking out an old gdb/binutils release will 
not get exactly the right set of sources (namely, the checkout won't 
include the top-level mpw files).  I shed a very small tear.


J

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Stan Shebs]

Jason Molenda wrote:

>
> On Mar 24, 2004, at 5:45 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>> I'm going to save everybody some disk space and remove the support bits
>> from the rest of src/, starting with this patch to the top level,
>> preapproved by DJ.
>
>
> I'm sure you already knew this, but you'll need to update the cvs 
> modules for the repository at the same time you're doing this - these 
> files are explicitly named in there:

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about those. Module hacking, alright! It's been
a while.

Stan

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Andrew Cagney]

> I'm sure you already knew this, but you'll need to update the cvs modules for the repository at the same time you're doing this - these files are explicitly named in there:
> 
> src-support  -a src/.cvsignore src/COPYING src/COPYING.LIB src/COPYING.NEWLIB
>              src/COPYING.LIBGLOSS src/ChangeLog src/MAINTAINERS
>              src/Makefile.def src/Makefile.in src/Makefile.tpl src/README
>              src/README-maintainer-mode src/config src/config-ml.in
>              src/config.guess src/config.if src/config.sub src/configure
>              src/configure.in src/contrib src/etc src/gettext.m4 src/install-sh
>              src/libtool.m4 src/ltcf-c.sh src/ltcf-cxx.sh src/ltcf-gcj.sh
>              src/ltconfig src/ltmain.sh src/makefile.vms src/missing src/mkdep
>              src/mkinstalldirs src/move-if-change src/mpw-README
>              src/mpw-build.in src/mpw-config.in src/mpw-configure
>              src/mpw-install src/setup.com src/src-release src/symlink-tree
>              src/ylwrap

Er, the modules file should _not_ be updated.  You can always add, but 
never remove entries.

Andrew

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> writes:

> > I'm sure you already knew this, but you'll need to update the cvs modules for the repository at the same time you're doing this - these files are explicitly named in there:
> > src-support  -a src/.cvsignore src/COPYING src/COPYING.LIB
> > src/COPYING.NEWLIB
> >              src/COPYING.LIBGLOSS src/ChangeLog src/MAINTAINERS
> >              src/Makefile.def src/Makefile.in src/Makefile.tpl src/README
> >              src/README-maintainer-mode src/config src/config-ml.in
> >              src/config.guess src/config.if src/config.sub src/configure
> >              src/configure.in src/contrib src/etc src/gettext.m4 src/install-sh
> >              src/libtool.m4 src/ltcf-c.sh src/ltcf-cxx.sh src/ltcf-gcj.sh
> >              src/ltconfig src/ltmain.sh src/makefile.vms src/missing src/mkdep
> >              src/mkinstalldirs src/move-if-change src/mpw-README
> >              src/mpw-build.in src/mpw-config.in src/mpw-configure
> >              src/mpw-install src/setup.com src/src-release src/symlink-tree
> >              src/ylwrap
> 
> Er, the modules file should _not_ be updated.  You can always add, but
> never remove entries.

If leaving the files in there doesn't cause any errors or warnings
when doing a checkout, then I agree that the modules file should not
be changed.

However, if we do get errors or warnings, then I'm afraid that we must
change it, even though it is clearly the wrong thing to do from a
version control standpoint.  The modules file in general is a bug in
CVS, not a feature.  It might be possible to implement the idea
properly, but the CVS implementation is clearly broken.

Ian

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Jason Molenda]

On Mar 25, 2004, at 7:31 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:

>> I'm sure you already knew this, but you'll need to update the cvs 
>> modules for the repository at the same time you're doing this - these 
>> files are explicitly named in there:
>
> Er, the modules file should _not_ be updated.  You can always add, but 
> never remove entries.

In this case, these support files have been obsolete for longer than 
the sourceware repositories have been live.  From a completely maniacal 
outlook we'd never want to remove files like this, but looking at it 
realistically, there's nothing being lost here.  Yes, if someone checks 
out binutils 2.10 (one of the first releases after the repositories 
moved to sourceware, circa June 2000) by a cvs command they'll be 
missing the mpw support files from the top level.

If the modules file is not updated, every checkout until the end of 
time will include

cvs checkout: warning: src/mpw-build.in is not (any longer) pertinent
cvs checkout: warning: src/mpw-README is not (any longer) pertinent
cvs checkout: warning: src/mpw-config.in is not (any longer) pertinent
cvs checkout: warning: src/mpw-configure is not (any longer) pertinent
cvs checkout: warning: src/mpw-install is not (any longer) pertinent


Which do you think is going to cause more questions and confusion:  
People checking out binutils 2.10 from CVS and being shocked that the 
mpw support files, which no longer do anything useful, are not present, 
or people checking out TOT and wondering what the heck these five 
missing files are and why they're not pertinent.

The modules file must be updated.

J

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Mar 25, 2004, at 7:31 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>>> I'm sure you already knew this, but you'll need to update the cvs modules for the repository at the same time you're doing this - these files are explicitly named in there:
>>
>>
>> Er, the modules file should _not_ be updated.  You can always add, but never remove entries.
> 
> 
> In this case, these support files have been obsolete for longer than the sourceware repositories have been live.  From a completely maniacal outlook we'd never want to remove files like this, but looking at it realistically, there's nothing being lost here.  Yes, if someone checks out binutils 2.10 (one of the first releases after the repositories moved to sourceware, circa June 2000) by a cvs command they'll be missing the mpw support files from the top level.

On the other hand this will cause them to mysteriously disappear from 
the current live GDB and BINUTILS branches.

Anyway to sit on this until after there's been a release pulled from 
those branches?

Andrew

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Stan Shebs]

Andrew Cagney wrote:

>> On Mar 25, 2004, at 7:31 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm sure you already knew this, but you'll need to update the cvs 
>>>> modules for the repository at the same time you're doing this - 
>>>> these files are explicitly named in there:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Er, the modules file should _not_ be updated.  You can always add, 
>>> but never remove entries.
>>
>>
>>
>> In this case, these support files have been obsolete for longer than 
>> the sourceware repositories have been live.  From a completely 
>> maniacal outlook we'd never want to remove files like this, but 
>> looking at it realistically, there's nothing being lost here.  Yes, 
>> if someone checks out binutils 2.10 (one of the first releases after 
>> the repositories moved to sourceware, circa June 2000) by a cvs 
>> command they'll be missing the mpw support files from the top level.
>
>
> On the other hand this will cause them to mysteriously disappear from 
> the current live GDB and BINUTILS branches.
>
> Anyway to sit on this until after there's been a release pulled from 
> those branches?

Well, they're not any different from what was in any of the last
releases. In fact, those files haven't been touched (except for
a couple mass-edits) since I last worked on them, in 1996. So on
the off chance that some software archaeologist wants to get a
PhD studying the mysteries of Mac in GNU (hey, it could happen!),
there will be plenty of releases where the latest versions may
be found.

Stan

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Andrew Cagney]

> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>>> On Mar 25, 2004, at 7:31 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm sure you already knew this, but you'll need to update the cvs modules for the repository at the same time you're doing this - these files are explicitly named in there:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Er, the modules file should _not_ be updated.  You can always add, but never remove entries.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In this case, these support files have been obsolete for longer than the sourceware repositories have been live.  From a completely maniacal outlook we'd never want to remove files like this, but looking at it realistically, there's nothing being lost here.  Yes, if someone checks out binutils 2.10 (one of the first releases after the repositories moved to sourceware, circa June 2000) by a cvs command they'll be missing the mpw support files from the top level.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the other hand this will cause them to mysteriously disappear from the current live GDB and BINUTILS branches.
>>
>> Anyway to sit on this until after there's been a release pulled from those branches?
> 
> 
> Well, they're not any different from what was in any of the last
> releases. In fact, those files haven't been touched (except for
> a couple mass-edits) since I last worked on them, in 1996. So on
> the off chance that some software archaeologist wants to get a
> PhD studying the mysteries of Mac in GNU (hey, it could happen!),
> there will be plenty of releases where the latest versions may
> be found.

Stan, what's the urgency?  Why not wait until GDB 6.1 and BINUTILS 1.? 
are released as that is obviously going to make everyones life easier. 
What's that, a few extra weeks?

BTW, I've a few modules of my own that should be dropped.  If we do them 
all in a single hit and when those branches have died, things will work 
a lot better.

Andrew

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Stan Shebs]

Andrew Cagney wrote:

>> Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 25, 2004, at 7:31 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure you already knew this, but you'll need to update the cvs 
>>>>>> modules for the repository at the same time you're doing this - 
>>>>>> these files are explicitly named in there:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Er, the modules file should _not_ be updated.  You can always add, 
>>>>> but never remove entries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this case, these support files have been obsolete for longer 
>>>> than the sourceware repositories have been live.  From a completely 
>>>> maniacal outlook we'd never want to remove files like this, but 
>>>> looking at it realistically, there's nothing being lost here.  Yes, 
>>>> if someone checks out binutils 2.10 (one of the first releases 
>>>> after the repositories moved to sourceware, circa June 2000) by a 
>>>> cvs command they'll be missing the mpw support files from the top 
>>>> level.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand this will cause them to mysteriously disappear 
>>> from the current live GDB and BINUTILS branches.
>>>
>>> Anyway to sit on this until after there's been a release pulled from 
>>> those branches?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, they're not any different from what was in any of the last
>> releases. In fact, those files haven't been touched (except for
>> a couple mass-edits) since I last worked on them, in 1996. So on
>> the off chance that some software archaeologist wants to get a
>> PhD studying the mysteries of Mac in GNU (hey, it could happen!),
>> there will be plenty of releases where the latest versions may
>> be found.
>
>
> Stan, what's the urgency?  Why not wait until GDB 6.1 and BINUTILS 1.? 
> are released as that is obviously going to make everyones life easier. 
> What's that, a few extra weeks?

I have a bit of time available now, no guarantees about the future.
Seeing as how the support has long been gone from GDB proper, I'm
totally mystified as to why these files even matter to anybody one way
or the other, let alone how keeping them makes "everyones life
easier"?.  Am I missing a scripting/packaging dependency or
something?

Stan

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Andrew Cagney]

>> Stan, what's the urgency?  Why not wait until GDB 6.1 and BINUTILS 1.? are released as that is obviously going to make everyones life easier. What's that, a few extra weeks?
> 
> 
> I have a bit of time available now, no guarantees about the future.
> Seeing as how the support has long been gone from GDB proper, I'm
> totally mystified as to why these files even matter to anybody one way
> or the other, let alone how keeping them makes "everyones life
> easier"?.  Am I missing a scripting/packaging dependency or
> something?

Who knows whats going on with scripting/packaging.

I'm more than happy to do this for you in a few weeks once GDB and 
BINUTILS are out of the way.

Andrew

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Andrew Cagney]

> 
>>> Stan, what's the urgency?  Why not wait until GDB 6.1 and BINUTILS 1.? are released as that is obviously going to make everyones life easier. What's that, a few extra weeks?
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a bit of time available now, no guarantees about the future.
>> Seeing as how the support has long been gone from GDB proper, I'm
>> totally mystified as to why these files even matter to anybody one way
>> or the other, let alone how keeping them makes "everyones life
>> easier"?.  Am I missing a scripting/packaging dependency or
>> something?
> 
> 
> Who knows whats going on with scripting/packaging.

Stan,

I see you've committed these changes.  GDB 6.1 branch, and I suspect the 
BINUTILS branches will no longer snapshot:

> 4
> ?
> Fri Apr  2 02:24:10 UTC 2004: Fix the version in any isolated files ...
> Fri Apr 2 02:24:10 UTC 2004: Blatting files ...
> Fri Apr 2 02:24:10 UTC 2004: Making snapshot using src-release ...
> make: *** No rule to make target `mpw-README', needed by `gdb+dejagnu.tar'.  Stop.

That is why I asked you to do this:

> I'm more than happy to do this for you in a few weeks once GDB and BINUTILS are out of the way.

Andrew

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 10:24:47AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>>Stan, what's the urgency?  Why not wait until GDB 6.1 and BINUTILS 1.? 
> >>>are released as that is obviously going to make everyones life easier. 
> >>>What's that, a few extra weeks?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I have a bit of time available now, no guarantees about the future.
> >>Seeing as how the support has long been gone from GDB proper, I'm
> >>totally mystified as to why these files even matter to anybody one way
> >>or the other, let alone how keeping them makes "everyones life
> >>easier"?.  Am I missing a scripting/packaging dependency or
> >>something?
> >
> >
> >Who knows whats going on with scripting/packaging.
> 
> Stan,
> 
> I see you've committed these changes.  GDB 6.1 branch, and I suspect the 
> BINUTILS branches will no longer snapshot:

Actually, it wasn't Stan.

revision 1.56
date: 2004/03/30 01:35:57;  author: hjl;  state: Exp;  lines: +0 -5
Remove mpw-* from src-support.


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: Retire the MPW support from toplevel and binutils

[Stan Shebs]

Andrew Cagney wrote:

>>
>>>> Stan, what's the urgency?  Why not wait until GDB 6.1 and BINUTILS 
>>>> 1.? are released as that is obviously going to make everyones life 
>>>> easier. What's that, a few extra weeks?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a bit of time available now, no guarantees about the future.
>>> Seeing as how the support has long been gone from GDB proper, I'm
>>> totally mystified as to why these files even matter to anybody one way
>>> or the other, let alone how keeping them makes "everyones life
>>> easier"?.  Am I missing a scripting/packaging dependency or
>>> something?
>>
>>
>>
>> Who knows whats going on with scripting/packaging.
>
>
> Stan,
>
> I see you've committed these changes.  GDB 6.1 branch, and I suspect 
> the BINUTILS branches will no longer snapshot:
>
>> 4
>> ?
>> Fri Apr  2 02:24:10 UTC 2004: Fix the version in any isolated files ...
>> Fri Apr 2 02:24:10 UTC 2004: Blatting files ...
>> Fri Apr 2 02:24:10 UTC 2004: Making snapshot using src-release ...
>> make: *** No rule to make target `mpw-README', needed by 
>> `gdb+dejagnu.tar'.  Stop.
>
Sorry, that's why I was hoping for specifics last week on exactly
what problems you anticipated; it's the work of a moment to update
src-release on the branches, but a "who knows" answer doesn't give
me much guidance.

Stan


Stan

Objcopy alignment

[Dave Murphy]

Is it possible to set the alignment of data when using objcopy to convert
binary data to an object file? Something equivalent to __attribute__
((aligned (4))

Dave