Re: Assume solib.h

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 06:59:07PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Eli, can you perhaphs explain what exactly you mean by "supported", how 
> the GNU project benefits by expending already limited resources on 
> continually fixing vax-ultrix - a non GNU system, and how my change 
> breaks it?

Mark wrote:

>please don't check in something like this without testing                                              
>this on some sort of embedded target, vax-dec-openbsd* or                                              
>vax-dec-ultrix4*.                                                                                      

Vax is by no means an embedded target, so I think his meaning is fairly
clear - it's a sample target on which GDB does not support shared
libraries.  Please don't try to change the subject by fixating on the
Vax.

Could you explain what _you_ mean by supported?  My interpretation is
that a platform on which GDB works, deliberately by included code
rather than accidentally through support for some other platform, is
obviously "supported".  We've gone to some effort to add the support
and breaking it is a disservice to our users.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz