This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Limited success with 3.0 branch on AIX
- To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: Limited success with 3.0 branch on AIX
- From: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 18:26:54 -0400
- cc: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>, "Zack Weinberg" <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>, Matthew Conway <matt_conway at i2 dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
>>>>> Elena Zannoni writes:
Elena> I would prefer to do option 3, so that it would work no matter what.
Elena> But if we all agree that we can take the risk of not having gcc2_compiled
Elena> defined at all, then we are off the hook.
Don't everyone answer at once!
Avoiding gcc2_compiled altogether would seem best to me. I defer
to the GDB developers whether this is correct.
I am a bit concerned about removing gcc2_compiled on AIX and not
making this a broader policy across all targets because some dependency
could slip in.
Instead of "gcc2_compiled", it seems better for GCC to utilize
whatever compiler version information or compiler-specific information is
allowed in the object format. Is N_OPT really the standard? Where do HP
and SGI and Intel and Greenhills and Metrowerks and other place their
version information?
David