From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10716 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2009 15:46:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 10707 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2009 15:46:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from comm.purplecow.org (HELO comm.purplecow.org) (210.87.62.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:46:22 +0000 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Received: from interact.purplecow.org ([127.0.0.1]) by comm.purplecow.org (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-6.03 (built Mar 14 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KSU0095JMH6R540@comm.purplecow.org> for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:46:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from interact.purplecow.org ([10.0.66.17] helo=interact.purplecow.org) with IPv4:25 by ASSP.nospam; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:46:18 +1100 Received: from 10.0.66.17 (proxying for unknown) (SquirrelMail authenticated user dclarke@blastwave.org) by interact.purplecow.org with HTTP; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:46:18 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <64133.10.0.66.17.1257781578.squirrel@interact.purplecow.org> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:46:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Updating Primary and Secondary platform list for gcc-4.5 ??? From: Dennis Clarke To: Rainer Orth Cc: Eric Botcazou , "Kaveh R. GHAZI" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Reply-to: dclarke@blastwave.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.11 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/msg00255.txt.bz2 > 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 of the OS versions are outdated.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. 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. Solaris 10 is the enterprise class commercial grade Solaris release and it is staying put for a long long long time yet. -- Dennis Clarke dclarke@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris dclarke@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris