From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Edelsohn To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Kevin Buettner , "Zack Weinberg" , Matthew Conway , Mark Mitchell , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Limited success with 3.0 branch on AIX Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:27:00 -0000 Message-id: <200105172226.SAA25498@makai.watson.ibm.com> References: <15107.21410.608878.788866@kwikemart.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00298.html >>>>> Elena Zannoni writes: Elena> I would prefer to do option 3, so that it would work no matter what. Elena> But if we all agree that we can take the risk of not having gcc2_compiled Elena> defined at all, then we are off the hook. Don't everyone answer at once! Avoiding gcc2_compiled altogether would seem best to me. I defer to the GDB developers whether this is correct. I am a bit concerned about removing gcc2_compiled on AIX and not making this a broader policy across all targets because some dependency could slip in. Instead of "gcc2_compiled", it seems better for GCC to utilize whatever compiler version information or compiler-specific information is allowed in the object format. Is N_OPT really the standard? Where do HP and SGI and Intel and Greenhills and Metrowerks and other place their version information? David