From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-157934-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14384 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2009 15:00:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 14369 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2009 15:00:39 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_40
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (HELO smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) (64.202.165.44)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:00:34 +0000
Received: (qmail 13015 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2009 15:00:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (68.109.142.16)   by smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.44) with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2009 15:00:32 -0000
Message-ID: <1B0EDB7E77DD48198510BAD9B902A291@glap>
From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
To: "Mark Mitchell" <mark@codesourcery.com>, 	"Richard Guenther" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: <dclarke@blastwave.org>, 	"Rainer Orth" <ro@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>, 	"Eric Botcazou" <ebotcazou@adacore.com>, 	<gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, 	"David Edelsohn" <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
References: <37061.10.0.66.17.1257785435.squirrel@interact.purplecow.org> <84fc9c000911090859r3170c8f4td8080089e5a4f242@mail.gmail.com> <4AF99CCB.8000104@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: Updating Primary and Secondary platform list for gcc-4.5 ???
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:00:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	format=flowed; 	charset="iso-8859-1"; 	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
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
X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00334.txt.bz2

From: "Mark Mitchell" <mark@codesourcery.com>

> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> If config.gcc handles both triples the same (*-*-solaris2.10 and
>> *-*-solaris2.11) then we can consider both at the same level.
>
> Indeed.  Furthermore, we certainly wouldn't want to break support for
> Solaris 2.10 at this point, so having 2.10 listed seems to make sense to
> me.

Agreed.  I guess my remaining questions are for AIX and mipsisa64-elf.

Can someone please confirm that mipsisa64-elf is a cross-compile-only target 
and therefore not relevant for host-based MPC portability testing?

And do we want to update aix5.2 to aix5.3 in our platforms list?

        Thanks,
        --Kaveh