pending/1013: Re: gdb/979: Look into obsoleting i[3456]86-dg-dgux

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>]

>Number:         1013
>Category:       pending
>Synopsis:       Re: gdb/979: Look into obsoleting i[3456]86-dg-dgux
>Confidential:   yes
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   unknown
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Jan 31 17:28:00 UTC 2003
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     
>Release:        
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
 Some more DG/UX info:
 
 The most recent release was DG/UX 4.20MU07.
 The "MU" stands for "maintenance update".
 Date: 2001-04
 
 DG/UX uses gcc as its bundled C compiler.
 They have their own linker and debuggers ('mxdb' and 'dbx').
 They don't supply gdb.
 
 I came across an old gcc mailing list message (circa 1999)
 that said DG/UX is stuck on DWARF-1 because their linker
 would not support DWARF-2.  I don't know if that's still true.
 Sorry, I didn't record the URL.
 
 Programming manuals:
   http://www-csc.dg.com/csc/custdocs/26000946.pdf
   http://www-csc.dg.com/csc/custdocs/67010593.pdf
 
 On the gcc side, Zach Weinberg listed i[3456]86-dg-dgux on the
 target obsoletion list for gcc 3.1, back in 2002-04:
 
   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-04/msg00605.html
 
 Nobody stepped forward to protest.  I'm kinda surprised by that,
 considering that DG/UX had a release in 2001-04, and DG/UX uses gcc
 as their only bundled compiler.
 
 Perhaps DG/UX is stuck on gcc 2.X?
 
 So I think that DG/UX probably still has a significant field population.
 If we announce gdb obsoletion for DG/UX, it's likely that we will
 get the same lack of objection that gcc did -- especially because DG/UX
 relies on gcc and does not even provide gdb at all.  But I would not be
 surprised at all if some users stepped forward.
 
 Michael C
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: