From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6660 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2004 16:12:37 -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 6648 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 16:12:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Aug 2004 16:12:36 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7CGCae3021584 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:12:36 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7CGCaa19372; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:12:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-22.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.22]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i7CGCZGB032118; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:12:35 -0400 Received: from saguaro (saguaro.lan [192.168.64.2]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11/8.12.10) with SMTP id i7CGCTpP016983; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:12:30 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:12:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: What should we do with rs6000? Message-Id: <20040812091229.2bd1e631@saguaro> In-Reply-To: <20040812033326.GP25562@gnat.com> References: <20040811221554.GG25562@gnat.com> <411AA437.1060702@gnu.org> <20040812033326.GP25562@gnat.com> Organization: Red Hat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00464.txt.bz2 On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:33:26 -0700 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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? I'm all in favor of using autoconf derived information. The problem with the xm*.h files (as you've seen) is that the information contained therein is often very dated. Kevin