Re: Which HPPA targets do we still support?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

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