This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: What should we do with rs6000?

From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at gnat dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:12:29 -0700
Subject: Re: What should we do with rs6000?
Organization: Red Hat
References: <20040811221554.GG25562@gnat.com><411AA437.1060702@gnu.org><20040812033326.GP25562@gnat.com>

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:33:26 -0700
Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com> wrote:

> > I think a more immediate question to ask is: Is autoconf sufficient for 
> > configuring / building on those systems and hence can the xm*.h files be 
> > removed?
> > 
> > Here we're going with a working assumption that the answer is yes, and 
> > if it turns out that it isn't  we've a bug in configure :-)
> 
> Do I understand correctly that you're saying that we should remove
> xm-rs6000.h as well?
> 
> Peter, Kevin, what do you think?

I'm all in favor of using autoconf derived information.  The problem
with the xm*.h files (as you've seen) is that the information contained
therein is often very dated.

Kevin

References:
- What should we do with rs6000?
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: What should we do with rs6000?
  - From: Andrew Cagney
- Re: What should we do with rs6000?
  - From: Joel Brobecker

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]