Re: Assume solib.h

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:51:07 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: joseph@codesourcery.com, kevinb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > please don't check in something like this without testing
> > this on some sort of embedded target, vax-dec-openbsd* or
> > vax-dec-ultrix4*.
> 
> I'm really really sorry here (and remember I also hack on *BSD, even 
> down to kernel fixes - you're hardly a voice in the wilderness on this 
> one).  We can't do this.
> 
> My change allows Code Sorcery to achieve their goal of getting Solaris 
> 10 support in GDB, while at the same time allow us to move forward with 
> our objective of improving support for GNU, GNU/Linux and even the other 
> mainstream Free and non-Free platform support.
> 
> We win - Code Sorcery Wins; we have a symbiotic relationship.
> 
> On the other hand, by effectively requiring that a contributor must 
> first test/fix a change on marginal if not irrelevant systems such as 
> vax-dec-ultrix4 (the suggestion also carried other less pleasant 
> undertones), can only stall the host's (GDB's) development.  Isn't that 
> called a parasitic relationship?

I'm with Mark on this one: a patch that potentially breaks a supported
platform doesn't get my vote.  If a platform is supported, it deserves
that we don't break it, and calling it ``marginal'' doesn't change
anything.

I don't see how any affiliation we might have with Code Sorcery
justifies that we do partial job when checking in a change.  If they
want Solaris support that badly, they can use your changes locally.