From: Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Obsoleting Solaris 10 support
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 14:31:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yddbm7uj74w.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181016142024.GD17534@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:20:24 -0700")
Hi Joel,
>> Yesterday I've announced the obsoletion of Solaris 10 support in GCC 9
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-10/msg00139.html
>>
>> I believe the same reasons cited there hold for GDB as well. Besides,
>> we had some build failures recently that only occured on Solaris 10,
>> creating work to support a rapidly dwindling or even vanished user base.
>> Therefore, I wonder how best to handle this in GDB.
>>
>> While GCC has roughly one release a year and GCC 9, the last relase to
>> support Solaris 10 with --enable-obsolete, will appear sometime next
>> spring, GDB has a release cycle of about 6 months. Should we obsolete
>> Solaris 10 for GDB 8.3 now, getting a bit ahead of GCC, or rather wait
>> for GDB 8.4 instead? My gut feeling is that it would be better to wait
>> for 8.4: more often than not GCC adds support for new DWARF versions or
>> other extensions, and it would be good to have a GDB that supports
>> what's in the GCC 9 release.
>
> I don't know of any particular issue that might create a strong
> reason for dropping Solaris 10 support in the short term; and
> I agree that it would be nice for the users on Solaris 10 to
> continue providing newer versions of GDB on that platform until
> GCC also stops. However, this is only really possible if contributors
> like yourself stand behind it. So, in my mind, I would continue with
> the default stand where we keep support by default as long as it doesn't
> unduly slows the rest of GDB development.
this would argue for an obsoletion in the GDB 8.4 timeframe, roughly at
the same time GCC itself does. Issues I'm facing with Solaris 10 right
now (apart from the S10-only build breakages) are having to deal with
different syscall numbers while working on an xml syscall table for
Solaris and catch syscall support, as well as differences in corefile
contents. I suspect there will be more as time goes on.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-16 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-16 9:42 Rainer Orth
2018-10-16 14:20 ` Joel Brobecker
2018-10-16 14:31 ` Rainer Orth [this message]
2018-10-16 16:39 ` Joel Brobecker
2018-10-16 18:21 ` Dennis Clarke
2018-10-17 12:39 ` Rainer Orth
2018-10-17 12:34 ` Rainer Orth
2018-10-16 18:41 ` Dennis Clarke
2018-10-17 12:42 ` Rainer Orth
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=yddbm7uj74w.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE \
--to=ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox