This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Assume solib.h
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:57:57 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:59:07 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, joseph@codesourcery.com, kevinb@redhat.com,
> gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
>
> > I'm with Mark on this one: a patch that potentially breaks a supported
> > platform doesn't get my vote. If a platform is supported, it deserves
> > that we don't break it, and calling it ``marginal'' doesn't change
> > anything.
>
> Eli, can you perhaphs explain what exactly you mean by "supported"
Like Daniel, I consider "supported" any target for which GDB builds
and works, and which is not declared deprecated.
Hmm, personally I think that's a bit too broad. I consider a system
"supported" if there is someone who is more or less actively tracking
GDB development, making sure that GDB keeps working on a particular
target.
> how the GNU project benefits by expending already limited resources
> on continually fixing vax-ultrix - a non GNU system
The same way it benefits by expending already limited resources on
fixing other targets--by being useful to our users.
I can't say with a straight face that vax-ultrix will be very useful
to our more than a few user; there aren't many VAXen left running
ULTRIX I suppose. I "support" vax-ultrix since it was fun to do. But
I think it serves the higher purpose of keeping us honest about the
variety of systems out there. Since it is an up to date target it
doesn't take much resources.
Keeping support for targets without shared libraries alive just for
vax-ultrix wouldn't make sense. But it certainly isn't the only
target out there without shared libs.
Mark