From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-87331-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17516 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2003 21:26:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 17508 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2003 21:26:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE) (129.70.136.245)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2003 21:26:03 -0000
Received: from xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [129.70.137.35])
	by momotombo.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.6/TechFak/2003/04/16/pk) with ESMTP id hBCLPmG00354;
	Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:25:48 +0100 (MET)
From: Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Message-ID: <16346.12890.201619.790617@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:27:00 -0000
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>, Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com>,
   "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com>, rms@gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
   binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub}
In-Reply-To: <or3cbqsj61.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
References: <8765hf4c8z.fsf@wasabisystems.com>
	<87wu9mt79r.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
	<871xrs5b9j.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu>
	<87znegqb31.fsf@codesourcery.com>
	<87brqsw9d9.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu>
	<871xroqlaf.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
	<87n0aaj4cl.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu>
	<87wu9esxu6.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
	<E1ARacX-0004dy-6z@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<87ad69rf42.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
	<E1ARnzC-0007tg-2x@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<87y8tsx58e.fsf@codesourcery.com>
	<8765gwvowl.fsf@wasabisystems.com>
	<87r7zkb6xm.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu>
	<oriskw2ni1.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<yddllpn30i3.fsf@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
	<87llpn0wh4.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu>
	<16341.3267.380410.190238@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
	<or3cbqsj61.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00742.txt.bz2

Alexandre Oliva writes:

> There's another reason to change from solaris2.10 to something else:
> to avoid matches on say solaris2.[0-6]* from matching 2.10.
> Backward-compatibility is not an argument to make it solaris2.10: it
> *will* expose brokenness.  We could do better by using solaris10,
> since those that use solaris* will still match, and those that use
> 2.[0-6]* won't inappropriately match.

But as I wrote before, solaris10 will likely be wrong by the time SunOS
5.10 is released, because it will probably be called otherwise.

Just stay with solaris2.* and be done with this nonsense (and discussion).

	Rainer