From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13340 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2002 21:23:03 -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 13332 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 21:23:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 21:23:02 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FAB3E60; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:23:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DC98837.6070801@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:23:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz , Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Which HPPA targets do we still support? References: <20021106020308.GM5164@gnat.com> <20021106032103.GA16623@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 > 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. Even ``was'' is being generous here for the hppa*-pro*. I don't think it built on anything other than HP/UX :-( > 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. Personally, I'd just, initally worry about: HPPA HPPA_64 (and perhaphs HPPA-elf if that is meaningingful?). I'd expect all the others to be broken. > 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. Andrew