From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21479 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2002 14:06:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21471 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2002 14:06:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2002 14:06:47 -0000 Received: from tooth.toronto.redhat.com (unknown [172.16.14.29]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5759B8004; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:06:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tooth.toronto.redhat.com (fche@localhost) by tooth.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5IE6kb05361; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:06:46 -0400 Message-Id: <200206181406.g5IE6kb05361@tooth.toronto.redhat.com> To: cagney@redhat.com Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Obsolete GDB's m32r support In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:52:30 EDT." <3D0F3B1E.5020308@cygnus.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:06:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2 Hi - > > Can you summarize the technical reasons for this dichotomy of > > outcomes? In what way does the presence of old targets pose a > > technical challenge to more modern multiarch'd ones? In other words, > > what technical reasons exist to not allow old targets to stick around > > as they are? > > The rationale for this move has been discussed on a number of occasions > in the past, can I recommend a quick search through the e-mail archives > and a review of that previous debate. A quick search resulted only in (valid) descriptions of multi-arch superiority, and dicta that old targets shall convert or die. It didn't answer my question above. Perhaps you could spare time for a more specific pointer? - FChE