From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 324 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2003 21:55:07 -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 32583 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2003 21:55:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO panther.cs.ucla.edu) (131.179.128.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2003 21:55:02 -0000 Received: from penguin.cs.ucla.edu (Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.64.200]) by panther.cs.ucla.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.6/UCLACS-5.2) with ESMTP id hAPLsj908586; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:54:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from eggert by penguin.cs.ucla.edu with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AOl8u-0001Xk-00; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:54:44 -0800 To: Eric Botcazou 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 Subject: Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} References: <8765hf4c8z.fsf@wasabisystems.com> <200311241101.56765.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <87llq5v6ja.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <200311250844.13363.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> From: Paul Eggert Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:12:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200311250844.13363.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> Message-ID: <87fzgcazbv.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg01326.txt.bz2 Eric Botcazou writes: > without real numbers one could still argue that this is only a piece > of wishful thinking. It might be helpful to have more numbers, but I don't think they would affect the conclusion that only a tiny fraction of programs are affected, and the fixes will be relatively easy. > 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. Yes, I understand that. I occasionally have helped with GCC support on Solaris. I have volunteered to compose a patch for GCC, if that would help reassure you. > > 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. 2 minutes times 90 students is three hours. And that's just one class in one quarter at one university. After a while it starts to add up. We want to encourage newbies, not confuse them. > it would IMHO be inconsistent to get rid of the Solaris moniker, now > that GCC only supports Solaris. A more drastic change to GCC's support for Solaris/SunOS, that changes most instances of 'Solaris' to 'SunOS', would also work (though it'd take a bit more time to write). If you'd prefer such a solution I could propose one along those lines instead. (Obviously I shouldn't bother doing any of this unless config.guess/config.sub are changed.)