[PATCH] Cleanup bfd target vectors and ld emulations on Solaris

[Alan Modra]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 09:02:26AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.12.2025 15:51, Rainer Orth wrote:
> >>> Regarding the solaris cleanup, I've been testing these two cross
> >>> targets as part of my regression runs: "amd64-pc-solaris2.11" and
> >>> "sparc-sun-solaris2".  The latter config slips past the obsolescence
> >>> check in config.bfd and matches sparc*-*-*, and results in
> >>> "Fatal error: selected target format 'elf32-sparc-sol2' unknown"
> >>> from gas.
> >>>
> >>> Here's what I propose to tidy this.  I'll commit it on your OK.
> >>
> >> But weren't *-*-solaris2 supposed to continue to work, kind of as a
> >> wildcard for *-*-solaris2.1* ? I'm, too, having
> >> targets of that form in my set used for "global" testing.
> > 
> > I'd rather not do such silent under-the-hood aliasing if it can be
> > avoided.  I'd rather match what GCC's gcc/config.gcc does instead:
> > 
> > # Unsupported targets list.  Do not put an entry in this list unless
> > # it would otherwise be caught by a more permissive pattern.  The list
> > # should be in alphabetical order.
> > case ${target}${target_min} in
> > [...]
> >  | *-*-solaris2				\
> >  | *-*-solaris2.[0-9]			\
> >  | *-*-solaris2.[0-9].*			\
> >  | *-*-solaris2.10*			\
> >  | *-*-solaris2.11.[0-3]*		\
> > [...]
> > 	echo "*** Configuration ${target}${target_min} not supported" 1>&2
> > 	exit 1
> 
> I really can see pros and cons. First - maybe simply using "solaris2" was
> ambiguous in the past, so I shouldn't have used it. I didn't know better,
> though. Otoh forcing people to use "solaris2.10" or "solaris2.11" is
> overly specific imo: When having to pick a precise version, my expectation
> would be that the result then isn't suitable for the respective other
> target. Whereas my understanding is that from a binutils perspective 2.10
> and 2.11 are identical. Hence minimally I wonder whether "solaris-2.1x"
> should also be accepted, perhaps by way of using "solaris-2.1*" as glob
> pattern. Unless of course there is 2.12 in existence as well, and not
> compatible with 2.10 / 2.11.

Whether or not binutils should accept other than solaris2.10 or
solaris2.11 is a separate issue to the one I found with using
solaris2, so I'm going to respect Rainer's choice on that and commit
my fix for internal binutils consistency.

-- 
Alan Modra