From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2409 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2003 16:00:34 -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 2391 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2003 16:00:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2003 16:00:32 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39EED2B7F; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:00:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F3D039C.2070803@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:00:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Nick Clifton , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Patch] ld config bits for i860 coff target 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2 > 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. Andrew