From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18989 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2009 16:17:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 18980 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2009 16:17:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smarthost.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (HELO smarthost.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE) (129.70.137.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:16:58 +0000 Received: from komagatake.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (komagatake.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [129.70.137.126]) by smarthost.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06579F8; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:16:56 +0100 (CET) Received: (from ro@localhost) by komagatake.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (8.11.7+Sun/8.9.1) id nA9GGth29388; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:16:55 +0100 (MET) From: Rainer Orth Message-ID: <19192.16501.947402.858609@komagatake.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:17:00 -0000 To: dclarke@blastwave.org Cc: Eric Botcazou , "Kaveh R. GHAZI" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Updating Primary and Secondary platform list for gcc-4.5 ??? In-Reply-To: <64133.10.0.66.17.1257781578.squirrel@interact.purplecow.org> References: <64133.10.0.66.17.1257781578.squirrel@interact.purplecow.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00258.txt.bz2 Dennis Clarke writes: > > Eric Botcazou writes: > > > >> > I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list > >> > to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some > >> > of the OS versions are outdated. > >> > > >> > I've included the list from the page > >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html > >> > > >> > Should we update: > >> > > >> > 1. solaris2.10 -> 2.11 > >> > >> Why move to a not-yet-released version? > > > > Indeed: while I regularly test on Solaris 11/SPARC at the moment, it's > > still so much of a moving target that this doesn't make any sense. > > The issue may be one of "de facto" vs "defined as being" released. > > There is no such thing as a released Solaris revision that responds to > uname with SunOS5.11 yet. When Sun/Oracle actually releases something AND > you can buy a support contract for it then you have a valid platform in > commercial use. You can get support for the OpenSolaris distribution if you like, yet this is still very much work in progress, not a stable platform we can rely on. > Having said that .. I see roughly 30% of all my traffic from SunOS5.11 > users on either Solaris Nevada or OpenSolaris beta releases. > > The question should be ... do we in the community end user world see > SunOS5.11 as being a de facto release? I would say yes. Certainly not, even if it is widely used (primarily on laptops, I suppose). > Solaris 10 is the enterprise class commercial grade Solaris release and it > is staying put for a long long long time yet. Indeed, and even if we chose sparc-sun-solaris2.10 as the primary platform doesn't mean that *-*-solaris2.11 doesn't work, quite the contrary: I regularly test both and try to keep them working. Rainer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University