What should we do with rs6000?

What should we do with rs6000?

[Joel Brobecker]

I am mostly interested in config/rs6000/xm-rs6000.h. This file gets
included because config/rs6000/rs6000.mh gets selected. This leads
me to configure.host, where I see that this mh file only gets selected
if GDB is configure with a rs6000-*-* triplet that don't match certain
conditions:

        rs6000-*-lynxos*)       gdb_host=rs6000lynx ;;
        rs6000-*-aix4*)         gdb_host=aix4 ;;
        rs6000-*-*)             gdb_host=rs6000 ;;

So I guess this means older versions of AIX (3.x and older).
Am I right?

Do we still support older versions of AIX?

How about rs6000 itself??? Still supported?

-- 
Joel

Re: What should we do with rs6000?

[Andrew Cagney]

> I am mostly interested in config/rs6000/xm-rs6000.h. This file gets
> included because config/rs6000/rs6000.mh gets selected. This leads
> me to configure.host, where I see that this mh file only gets selected
> if GDB is configure with a rs6000-*-* triplet that don't match certain
> conditions:
> 
>         rs6000-*-lynxos*)       gdb_host=rs6000lynx ;;
>         rs6000-*-aix4*)         gdb_host=aix4 ;;
>         rs6000-*-*)             gdb_host=rs6000 ;;
> 
> So I guess this means older versions of AIX (3.x and older).
> Am I right?
> 
> Do we still support older versions of AIX?
> 
> How about rs6000 itself??? Still supported?

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 :-)

Andrew

Re: What should we do with rs6000?

[Michael Snyder]

Joel Brobecker wrote:
> I am mostly interested in config/rs6000/xm-rs6000.h. This file gets
> included because config/rs6000/rs6000.mh gets selected. This leads
> me to configure.host, where I see that this mh file only gets selected
> if GDB is configure with a rs6000-*-* triplet that don't match certain
> conditions:
> 
>         rs6000-*-lynxos*)       gdb_host=rs6000lynx ;;
>         rs6000-*-aix4*)         gdb_host=aix4 ;;
>         rs6000-*-*)             gdb_host=rs6000 ;;
> 
> So I guess this means older versions of AIX (3.x and older).
> Am I right?

rs6000-elf?

Re: What should we do with rs6000?

[Joel Brobecker]

> >So I guess this means older versions of AIX (3.x and older).
> >Am I right?
> 
> rs6000-elf?

But that would be the target only, right?

-- 
Joel

Re: What should we do with rs6000?

[Joel Brobecker]

> 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

Re: What should we do with rs6000?

[Andrew Cagney]

>>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?

Yep.  The infrastructure is going.

Andrew

Re: What should we do with rs6000?

[Joel Brobecker]

> >Do I understand correctly that you're saying that we should remove
> >xm-rs6000.h as well?
> 
> Yep.  The infrastructure is going.

Hmm, sorry, my fault. Can I ask again, just to make sure I am not
misinterpreting you: This is a configuration I can not test - we
should be able to remove blindly these xm­ files without breaking
anything, but since I can't test them, it may break. Should we go
ahead now anyway?

-- 
Joel

Re: What should we do with rs6000?

[Andrew Cagney]

>>>Do I understand correctly that you're saying that we should remove
>>>> >xm-rs6000.h as well?
>>
>>> 
>>> Yep.  The infrastructure is going.
> 
> 
> Hmm, sorry, my fault. Can I ask again, just to make sure I am not
> misinterpreting you: This is a configuration I can not test - we
> should be able to remove blindly these xm­ files without breaking
> anything, but since I can't test them, it may break. Should we go
> ahead now anyway?

Correct.  We can't reasonably require you or anyone else to test on such 
extremely old configurations.  Instead we go with the working assumption 
that the new code is sufficient to replace the old.

Andrew

Re: What should we do with rs6000?

[Kevin Buettner]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:33:26 -0700
Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com> 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