Re: obselete configurations & the top level

Re: obselete configurations & the top level

[Christian Groessler]

On 05/26/2002 10:42:57 PM MST Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>
>> This is a query.  A bunch of configurations have been obseleted and
>> removed from GCC recently.  These have all, I believe, been obseleted
>> and removed from GDB already.
>>
>> There is special-case code for many of these configurations in
>> configure.in.  I would like to get rid of it.
>>
>> What else do I need to check before I get rid of these cases?  Are any
>> of them possibly still supported by binutils?
>
>While it's certainly conceivable that some targets should be
>binutils-only (z8k is almost in that category for instance),

z8k is also supported by gdb.

regards,
chris

obselete configurations & the top level

[Nathanael Nerode]

This is a query.  A bunch of configurations have been obseleted and
removed from GCC recently.  These have all, I believe, been obseleted
and removed from GDB already.

There is special-case code for many of these configurations in
configure.in.  I would like to get rid of it.

What else do I need to check before I get rid of these cases?  Are any
of them possibly still supported by binutils?

Please see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-05/msg01994.html for
the list of configurations which are going away, where I'd like to see
if I can strip stuff out of the top level too.

I intend to submit a cleanup patch for this once I'm sure I'm not
deleting anything which is still supported somewhere.

Thanks in advance.

--Nathanael Nerode
neroden@twcny.rr.com

Re: obselete configurations & the top level

[Stan Shebs]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 
> This is a query.  A bunch of configurations have been obseleted and
> removed from GCC recently.  These have all, I believe, been obseleted
> and removed from GDB already.
> 
> There is special-case code for many of these configurations in
> configure.in.  I would like to get rid of it.
> 
> What else do I need to check before I get rid of these cases?  Are any
> of them possibly still supported by binutils?

While it's certainly conceivable that some targets should be
binutils-only (z8k is almost in that category for instance),
these are going to be unusual cases and there should be lots of
details about them in the top level files somewhere.  The onus
should be on the maintainers of any such config to speak up and
to document the situation thoroughly, and in the absence of any
such info, you should feel free to propose such cleanups.  (And
thanks in advance for doing it!)

Stan