Re: change behavior of elfos.h slightly

[Jason R Thorpe <thorpej at zembu dot com>]

On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 12:18:45PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:

 > >We're trying to enforce it for new ports and when major reconstruction is
 > >done for existing ports.  But we haven't forced every port to switch when
 > >dealing with minor problems.
 > 
 > Hmm, I thought the NetBSD stuff was a major reconstruction like OpenBSD was 
 > sometime ago, and AFAI remember the OpenBSD maintainer was tweaked quite a 
 > bit before his patches were accepted :-).
 > 
 > My experience with the newppc-branch let's me think that the extra work is 
 > really worth the effort. It increases maintainability and readability a lot 
 > and may even uncover latent bugs.

So, for what it's worth, I appreciate the goal, here.  I agree wholeheartedly
that the GCC configuration headers need to be cleaned up and clarified :-)

However, here are my issues:

	(1) Right now, I'm primarily concerned with getting basic NetBSD
	    support in the GNU tools up-to-par with other platforms.

	(2) As a secondary concern, I would like to make the NetBSD
	    support in the GNU tools as modular as possible, so that
	    common definitions aren't needlessly duplicated in multiple
	    files.  This is a maintenance nightmare considering that
	    NetBSD supports 10 CPU architectures and 3 different object
	    formats (a.out on some, ELF on some, ECOFF on some, some
	    support multiple formats, e.g. a.out+ELF or ECOFF+ELF, tho
	    the intent is to move everyone to ELF).

	(2) Many of the header files I have to work with on some arch's
	    (like, e.g. the i386) aren't up-to-snuff with how you want
	    the new scheme to work, and so I'm sort of backed into a
	    corner.

In any case, I'm certainly not trying to make things any *worse*.  I'll
do my best to work within your contraints, but I would appreciate a little
flexibility.

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com>