From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Lipe To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: sun/os as release candidate was: Removal of V2 code Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:46:00 -0000 Message-id: <20001120114731.F9451@rjlhome.sco.com> References: <200011201655.LAA09289@caip.rutgers.edu> X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00881.html Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > the SunOS box I had access to died While I'm sorry for your loss, there are ways to help coverage even in the absence of such a system. > I've felt SunOS a worthy second tier candidate for these reasons: > > Tests K&R stage1 support Many modern compilers have flags to dumb them down to K&R mode. Perhaps this could be accomplished by doing bootstraps with a compiler in such a mode. I suspect that "gcc -ansi" is probably not the best test, but it might suffice. Some vendor compiler might be a better test. Someone that cares about K&R could step up to the plate to add a cron job to do a nightly (or whatever) build on such a system. Does anyone other than HP even still provide a K&R-only compiler? If so, since there are binary kits of GCC available for that target, has the time come for us to relax the K&R restriction for bootstrapping GCC completely? > Tests SJLJ exceptions OpenServer in COFF mode uses SJLJ exceptions. (It's one reason I'm strongly considering yanking COFF mode; sjlj and dwarf-1 problems are apparently of decreasing strategic value to GCC and they break frequently.) This could be exercised somewhat by one of the nightly build processes by adding another pass with '-fsjlj-exceptions' or even doing a bootstrap by adding it to BOOT_CLFAGS. This could give us coverage on a system that doesn't _need_ SJLJ. > Tests fixincludes thoroughly > Tests other various missing OS feature handling in gcc Those represent holes. OTOH, maybe they represent holes that are of only of value on such an archaic target...I mean, does any actively maintained host/target still really spell "memcpy" only as "bcopy"? RJL