From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1199 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2003 22:05:26 -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 1190 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2003 22:05:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2003 22:05:25 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h8MM5M5W006234; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:05:22 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8MM5MVd009734; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:05:22 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id h8MM5MfU009733; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:05:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:05:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200309222205.h8MM5MfU009733@duracef.shout.net> To: kettenis@chello.nl Subject: Re: Apple and gcc 2? Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00286.txt.bz2 Mark> I sincerely hope that by "dropping GCC 2 support" you don't mean that Mark> we actively start removing code to support GCC 2. Oh, no, no, I am a long long ways from that. start: while (true) { document known usage of gcc 2; if (known usage < epsilon) break; sleep (3-6 months); // I am here } while (true) { publish loud announcements; if (user feedback > epsilon) goto start; sleep (4-8 weeks); } remove gcc 2 from my test bed; wait for next gcc release; start marking code obsolete; Of course that's just my personal algorithm, not gdb policy. In fact, if anyone else asks about gcc 2, we can point to my survey and all the platforms that still use gcc 2 as their primary gcc or as a still-supported gcc. Michael C