From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11018 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2004 03:33:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11006 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 03:33:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Aug 2004 03:33:27 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id C4ED847D91; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 03:33:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: What should we do with rs6000? Message-ID: <20040812033326.GP25562@gnat.com> References: <20040811221554.GG25562@gnat.com> <411AA437.1060702@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <411AA437.1060702@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00434.txt.bz2 > I think a more immediate question to ask is: Is autoconf sufficient for > configuring / building on those systems and hence can the xm*.h files be > removed? > > Here we're going with a working assumption that the answer is yes, and > if it turns out that it isn't we've a bug in configure :-) Do I understand correctly that you're saying that we should remove xm-rs6000.h as well? Peter, Kevin, what do you think? -- Joel