Re: Updating Primary and Secondary platform list for gcc-4.5 ???

[Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org> wrote:
>
>>> you can buy a support contract for it then you have a valid platform in
>>> commercial use.
>>
>> You can get support for the OpenSolaris distribution if you like
>
> I just went and looked ... you are correct, they have three levels in
> fact. It looks like $1080 for premium, $720 is standard business hours
> $324 is patches and updates with email tech support I think.
>
> So that makes it a real commercial platform in my mind.
>
>> is still very much work in progress, not a stable platform we can rely on.
>
> However, Solaris 10 was also a moving platoform in its first few releases
> but no one would debate it as a commercial grade release or not. I think
> Opensolaris must be looked at as viable and commercial grade. I am not at
> all biased in this regardless of the fact that I have been involved one
> way or another in the OpenSolaris project since day one. I'm very much an
> outside guy that just loves to experiment and perhaps even attempt to help
> where I can.
>
>>> Having said that .. I see roughly 30% of all my traffic from SunOS5.11
>>> users on either Solaris Nevada or OpenSolaris beta releases.
>>>
>>> The question should be ... do we in the community end user world see
>>> SunOS5.11 as being a de facto release? I would say yes.
>>
>> Certainly not, even if it is widely used (primarily on laptops, I
>> suppose).
>
> Well, would Fedora Core on PowerPC or Ubuntu or Debian ( any release ) be
> considered a platform or does that just fall under a wide umbrella of
> "Linux" ? Some of those are barely used at all anymore. Consider running
> Linux on a DEC Alpha. Who does that anymore? Is this a popularity
> measurement or is this based on something more tangible and quantitative
> like "commercially supported"?
>
>>> Solaris 10 is the enterprise class commercial grade Solaris release and
>>> it is staying put for a long long long time yet.
>>
>> Indeed, and even if we chose sparc-sun-solaris2.10 as the primary platform
>> doesn't mean that *-*-solaris2.11 doesn't work, quite the contrary: I
>> regularly test both and try to keep them working.
>
> I test everything on *-*-solaris2.8 which by way of the ABI golden rule
> instantly qualifies as tested on anything up to SunOS2.10. It does not
> imply SunOS2.11 however.

If config.gcc handles both triples the same (*-*-solaris2.10 and
*-*-solaris2.11) then we can consider both at the same level.
Just as we don't make a distinction for glibc or kernel releases
for the *-*-linux targets.  That some targets specify certain versions
is because in the past they handled each OS version slightly
different during GCC build and some even in use (for example
fixincludes have to be adjusted, etc.).

Richard.