Which HPPA targets do we still support?

Which HPPA targets do we still support?

[Joel Brobecker]

I was looking at configure.tgt to see the list of OSABI I would need to
add in osabi.[hc], and found a list that's a bit longer than I expected:

       hppa*-*-bsd*)           gdb_target=hppabsd ;;
       hppa*-*-pro*)           gdb_target=hppapro ;;
       hppa*64*-*-hpux11*)     gdb_target=hppa64 ;;
       hppa*-*-hpux*)          gdb_target=hppahpux ;;
       hppa*-*-hiux*)          gdb_target=hppahpux ;;
       hppa*-*-osf*)           gdb_target=hppaosf ;;
       hppa*-*-*)              gdb_target=hppa ;;

So far, the only target that I knew of was the hppa*-*-hpux*.
I did not know that hppa*-*-bsd* and hppa*-*-osf* existed.
I did not know about the hppa*-*-pro* either...

All I have access to are 2 HP/UX machines, with 11.00 and 10.20 (but
this machine is very slow)... While doing the multi-arch conversion,
I'll try not to break the other targets, but that's going to be a hard
battle. A second pair of eyes from a multiarch guru will be greatly
appreciated. Maybe I should send a message to gdb@sources to check if
some people are still using all these targets?

Is the list above the correct list to look at to get the list of new
OSABI enums? I would like to suggest the addition of 

    GDB_OSABI_HPPA
    GDB_OSABI_HPPA_64
    GDB_OSABI_HPPA_BSD
    GDB_OSABI_HPPA_HPUX
    GDB_OSABI_HPPA_OSF
    GDB_OSABI_HPPA_PRO

Does this look ok?

Thanks,
-- 
Joel

Re: Which HPPA targets do we still support?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:03:08PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> I was looking at configure.tgt to see the list of OSABI I would need to
> add in osabi.[hc], and found a list that's a bit longer than I expected:
> 
>        hppa*-*-bsd*)           gdb_target=hppabsd ;;
>        hppa*-*-pro*)           gdb_target=hppapro ;;
>        hppa*64*-*-hpux11*)     gdb_target=hppa64 ;;
>        hppa*-*-hpux*)          gdb_target=hppahpux ;;
>        hppa*-*-hiux*)          gdb_target=hppahpux ;;
>        hppa*-*-osf*)           gdb_target=hppaosf ;;
>        hppa*-*-*)              gdb_target=hppa ;;
> 
> So far, the only target that I knew of was the hppa*-*-hpux*.
> I did not know that hppa*-*-bsd* and hppa*-*-osf* existed.
> I did not know about the hppa*-*-pro* either...
> 
> All I have access to are 2 HP/UX machines, with 11.00 and 10.20 (but
> this machine is very slow)... While doing the multi-arch conversion,
> I'll try not to break the other targets, but that's going to be a hard
> battle. A second pair of eyes from a multiarch guru will be greatly
> appreciated. Maybe I should send a message to gdb@sources to check if
> some people are still using all these targets?

Actually, I believe that no one is using any of these targets except for
HP/UX.  hppa*-*-pro* was kept around because it is (was?) standalone;
you could build an hppa-proelf cross debugger to make sure you didn't
break compilation for the PA.

I've seen bug reports for HP/UX, but never for any of the others; and
we know the HPPA target has broken periodically, so that's a good hint
that no one's tracking them.  Of course if it's not much trouble, we
can keep them for now and deal with it later - but I'm not sure that we
need to hang on to all of them.

Looking at GCC's supported targets, I wouldn't be surprised if
hppa-openbsd is in use, but that won't match the existing pattern
anyway... ditto hppa-rtems.

> Is the list above the correct list to look at to get the list of new
> OSABI enums? I would like to suggest the addition of 
> 
>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA
>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA_64
>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA_BSD
>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA_HPUX
>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA_OSF
>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA_PRO
> 
> Does this look ok?

I don't think they're necessary, by analogy with the existing code...
certainly not GDB_OSABI_HPPA or GDB_OSABI_HPPA_64.  We probably need
GDB_OSABI_HPUX.  We've already got OSF1, which is presumably the right
OSF target.

If we're going to keep the anonymous "hppa-bsd" target we may need
GDB_OSABI_BSD.  I don't know if hppa-proelf has its own OSABI or not.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: Which HPPA targets do we still support?

[Andrew Cagney]

> Actually, I believe that no one is using any of these targets except for
> HP/UX.  hppa*-*-pro* was kept around because it is (was?) standalone;
> you could build an hppa-proelf cross debugger to make sure you didn't
> break compilation for the PA.

Even ``was'' is being generous here for the hppa*-pro*.  I don't think 
it built on anything other than HP/UX :-(

> I've seen bug reports for HP/UX, but never for any of the others; and
> we know the HPPA target has broken periodically, so that's a good hint
> that no one's tracking them.  Of course if it's not much trouble, we
> can keep them for now and deal with it later - but I'm not sure that we
> need to hang on to all of them.
> 
> Looking at GCC's supported targets, I wouldn't be surprised if
> hppa-openbsd is in use, but that won't match the existing pattern
> anyway... ditto hppa-rtems.
> 
> 
>> Is the list above the correct list to look at to get the list of new
>> OSABI enums? I would like to suggest the addition of 
>> 
>>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA
>>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA_64
>>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA_BSD
>>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA_HPUX
>>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA_OSF
>>     GDB_OSABI_HPPA_PRO
>> 
>> Does this look ok?
> 
> 
> I don't think they're necessary, by analogy with the existing code...
> certainly not GDB_OSABI_HPPA or GDB_OSABI_HPPA_64.  We probably need
> GDB_OSABI_HPUX.  We've already got OSF1, which is presumably the right
> OSF target.

Personally, I'd just, initally worry about:
	HPPA
	HPPA_64
(and perhaphs HPPA-elf if that is meaningingful?).  I'd expect all the 
others to be broken.

> If we're going to keep the anonymous "hppa-bsd" target we may need
> GDB_OSABI_BSD.  I don't know if hppa-proelf has its own OSABI or not.

Andrew