From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-16489-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 4680 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2003 23:15:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 4625 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 23:15:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO piper.synopsys.com) (198.182.56.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 23:15:06 -0000
Received: (from jbuck@localhost)
	by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB4NDkl23785;
	Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:13:46 -0800
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:15:00 -0000
From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>, Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com>,
   Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>, rms@gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
   binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub}
Message-ID: <20031204151345.A23762@synopsys.com>
References: <871xroqlaf.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <87n0aaj4cl.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <87wu9esxu6.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <E1ARacX-0004dy-6z@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ad69rf42.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <E1ARnzC-0007tg-2x@fencepost.gnu.org> <87y8tsx58e.fsf@codesourcery.com> <8765gwvowl.fsf@wasabisystems.com> <87r7zkb6xm.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <oriskw2ni1.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <oriskw2ni1.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>; from aoliva@redhat.com on Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:04:38PM -0200
X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:04:38PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I like the approach, but I think we'd be better off using solaris10
> for Solaris 10/SunOS 5.10, just because then solaris* would still
> match.  Solaris 10 is more like Solaris 2+ than SunOS 4, which most
> sunos* matches would get.  At which point, we could probably do
> without the preference switches.

Agreed; if we are going to make a change, it should preserve "solaris"
and abandon the "sunos".