Target deprecation list

[Jeff Epler]

[Jeff]
> > Is there any reasonable way to gage the amount of
> > time I'd need to devote, so that my proposal to my manager will be
> > reasonably accurate on that score?
> 
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 04:20:52PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> That's pretty hard to answer; it depends a lot on your experience, and
> on how many things don't quite work as expected on BSDI 2.1.

The list seems fairly small.

There are a pile of tests that fail because __attribute__((weak)) and
__attribute__((alias)) don't work.  I think that these just need to be made
expected errors.

Libiberty doesn't compile without a small tweak, because an included system
header requires another header to be included first. (this affects
binutils and gdb, too)

An additional fixinclude is needed to fix a bogus #define __attribute__ in
a header file (I sent a message about this to the list recently)

One libstdc++ file doesn't compile when -g is given.  I still don't
understand the reason for this, and have simply worked around it.

gdb compiles after i387.c (?) is added to a list of files to be linked in.

For all but the libstdc++ compilation problem, I can supply patches (though
if the libiberty problem is to be fixed by adding a #include, I suppose it
needs autoconfiscation I haven't done yet).  I'm not sure of the caues
of the libstdc++ issue, and I don't have the exact error at hand.


Assuming that patches to fix these issues were applied, what do I do
beyond building the 3.2 branch periodically and letting the list know
if something fails?

Jeff