From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13092 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2003 07:46:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13070 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2003 07:46:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.libertysurf.net) (213.36.80.91) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2003 07:46:23 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (213.36.36.32) by mail.libertysurf.net (6.5.026) id 3FC1CBFC00141BE5; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:46:09 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Eric Botcazou To: Paul Eggert Subject: Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:47:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: config-patches@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, ro@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de, bje@wasabisystems.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, brane@xbc.nu References: <8765hf4c8z.fsf@wasabisystems.com> <200311241101.56765.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <87llq5v6ja.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <87llq5v6ja.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200311250844.13363.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg01298.txt.bz2 > No: on the contrary, I expect that there are a few more. However, > it's still the case that only a very small number of programs are > affected, compared to the hundreds (or thousands?) of programs that > use config.guess and config.sub. Forgive my insistence, but without real numbers one could still argue that this is only a piece of wishful thinking. Moreover, I think you didn't really take into account the additional burden this would place on the shoulders of maintainers. I can speak for the GCC side: Solaris is a pain to support, period. You can't simply say: upgrade binutils, don't use this Bash version and so on. No, you have to cope with all the glitches of the shells, the assembler, the linker, the headers, the libraries, etc. So please, please, please, don't gratuitously add another layer of difficulties on top of this mess. > Not this academic quarter; they're using Python, which isn't affected. > However, in past quarters I have had them build GCC, so they were > affected. But were they really affected? I mean, beyond scratching their head for 2 minutes after seeing the triplet. > Ah, OK, you must be referring to the current CVS, which has ripped out > support for SunOS 4 and earlier. I was referring to the latest stable > version, GCC 3.3.2, which still has some files with sunos4* names. Yes. Only SunOS 5.x will be supported in GCC 3.4. > But at any rate this discrepancy is a minor one, as I'm not proposing > to rename all those files right now. It was just to point out that it would IMHO be inconsistent to get rid of the Solaris moniker, now that GCC only supports Solaris. -- Eric Botcazou