From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26862 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2003 21:27:00 -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 26848 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2003 21:27:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2003 21:27:00 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19nm67-00011Y-NX; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:26:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Nick Clifton , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Patch] ld config bits for i860 coff target Message-ID: <20030815212659.GA2840@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Nick Clifton , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030806014541.GY27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030806025553.GA14245@nevyn.them.org> <20030806040345.GB27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030814045151.GA28747@nevyn.them.org> <20030814052535.GU27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <3F3CF512.70001@redhat.com> <20030815152059.GA30887@nevyn.them.org> <3F3D039C.2070803@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F3D039C.2070803@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00164.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:00:28PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 10:58:26AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>How quickly people forget :-( > >> > >>The developer tools came to use specific generated versions of those > >>files because people encountered host dependant problems with the > >>generators. Guarenteed that the generated files being run, were > >>identical across all fronts. > > > > > >I didn't forget. If we re-encounter such problems then we can go back > >to having blessed tarballs. Your "idealistic" goal is a lot more > >realistic than you seem to think; the autotools have matured a great > >deal. > > Note also that any GCC developer's opinions need to be heavily, if not > totally discounted when it comes to GDB. Its GDB, and not GCC that will > get to sort out GDB's mess. > > I'd like to see hard evidence that the proposal works before considering > an implementation. I don't see how you could get any evidence without trying the implementation. Feel free to do so, in a week or so when I get around to redoing the conversion for GDB. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer