This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Obsolete XXXX
> I understand the motivation of trying to get things converted to
> multi-arch, but things should be declared obsolete because the
> chip is dead or because there are no users, not because there are
> no volunteers to change the code in a way you'd like it to be
> changed. The usual practice in GCC has been for someone to take
> a deep breath and then do a mass change of the sources; if you
> look at the GCC Changelog for the past year, you'll see some
> major updates that not only involved all the obscure targets, but
> were tested on them as well.
The process being followed to get targets obsoleted is:
announce the candidate on gdb@
(to see if anyone steps forward)
announce the intent on gdb-announce@
mark the code as obsolete
make a GDB release
remove the obsolete code
I'm only at the first step!
BTW, for changes across targets, GDB's strategy is similar. The
developer should at least ensure that all targets continue to build and
FWIW, the problem with doing this for multi-arch is that the process,
unless tested, is pretty much guarenteed to break the target. My memory
of the previous disussion on this drew the conclusion that obsoleting a
target would be better than converting it blindly. This way we (GDB)
wouldn't end up wasting our time trying to update a broken target.