This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


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

Re: Patch to remove putenv definition from gcc.c


On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 04:32:07PM -0700, Gregory L Priem wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:16:01 -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> >> Your suggestion is a good one but it needs VMS testing to validate.
> >> Any volunteers?
> >
> >Won't be me.  And VAX/VMS testers will probably have lots more trouble
> >than just this...
> 
> i can test on some vms systems, but would need some hand-holding on
> what to do... [i was never able to build gcc on vms by myself]
> 
> i appear to currently have access to systems running: V5.5-2, V7.1,
> and V7.2-1

Are all of those systems VAXes, or are there some Alphas in the mix too?
And what version of what system compiler is installed on each?  It will
be much easier to get GCC building again with DEC C than VAX C, since
the former is far less buggy, C89-compliant, etc.

I'm not sure it is worth even trying to test right now.  I would suggest
we wait until the ACT people roll their VMS patches back into the
official tree; that will get Alpha/VMS working again.  Then the VAX
port can be repaired by taking the Alpha port for an example.

In the mean while I would also suggest that VMS specific hacks _not_ be
added to the source tree, rather that they be _removed_ from system-
independent code whenever they get in the way.  It is likely to be less
trouble to start from scratch than to deal with the existing weeds.

I was meaning to submit a patch nuking VAX/VMS support altogether, per
the discussion some weeks ago, but am presently blocked on approval of
other configury-related changes.

zw


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