Re: [rfc] Remove ptrace-based Alpha OSF support

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 08:50:37PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> However, this has been broken a long time ago: CVS revision 1.2
> of procfs.c already no longer has the #ifdef HAVE_OPTIONAL_PROC_FS
> support.   In fact, I'm not quite sure what happened there:
> 
> revision 1.2
> date: 2000/02/16 08:02:57;  author: cagney;  state: Exp;  lines: +4540 -5031
> From Rodney Brown: Define MERGEPID when needed.
> 
> as this revision is basically a re-write of the whole file, which doesn't
> really match the log entry ...

This bit I can explain.  The diff between 1.1 and 1.2 is not
interesting; the diff between the last revision on the 1.1.1.x vendor
branch is.  A number of GDB snapshots were imported to create the
sourceware repository, and CVS's handling of imports is quirky.

> The following patch implements the above suggestion.  It's not
> really tested as I don't have access to an OSF system, but it
> appears to compile (modulo procfs headers), and the configuration
> changes seem to work ...
> 
> 
> What do you think?   Is this reasonable?  Did I miss something
> in the above analysis?

This all seems reasonable to me.  I believe that Joel has access to an
OSF system at AdaCore; maybe he can test the patch for you?

Someone told me while I was obsoleting targets that osf1 and probably
osf2 could go.  I don't recall who.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery