This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [Patch] ld config bits for i860 coff target
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com,gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:26:59 -0400
- Subject: Re: [Patch] ld config bits for i860 coff target
- References: <20030806014541.GY27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030806025553.GA14245@nevyn.them.org> <20030806040345.GB27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <m365lbgobb.fsf@redhat.com> <20030814045151.GA28747@nevyn.them.org> <20030814052535.GU27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <m3y8xwjh68.fsf@redhat.com> <3F3CF512.70001@redhat.com> <20030815152059.GA30887@nevyn.them.org> <3F3D039C.2070803@redhat.com>
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:00:28PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 10:58:26AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>How quickly people forget :-(
> >>
> >>The developer tools came to use specific generated versions of those
> >>files because people encountered host dependant problems with the
> >>generators. Guarenteed that the generated files being run, were
> >>identical across all fronts.
> >
> >
> >I didn't forget. If we re-encounter such problems then we can go back
> >to having blessed tarballs. Your "idealistic" goal is a lot more
> >realistic than you seem to think; the autotools have matured a great
> >deal.
>
> Note also that any GCC developer's opinions need to be heavily, if not
> totally discounted when it comes to GDB. Its GDB, and not GCC that will
> get to sort out GDB's mess.
>
> I'd like to see hard evidence that the proposal works before considering
> an implementation.
I don't see how you could get any evidence without trying the
implementation. Feel free to do so, in a week or so when I get around
to redoing the conversion for GDB.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer