flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub}

[Eric Botcazou]

> No: on the contrary, I expect that there are a few more.  However,
> it's still the case that only a very small number of programs are
> affected, compared to the hundreds (or thousands?) of programs that
> use config.guess and config.sub.

Forgive my insistence, but without real numbers one could still argue that 
this is only a piece of wishful thinking.

Moreover, I think you didn't really take into account the additional burden 
this would place on the shoulders of maintainers.  I can speak for the GCC 
side: Solaris is a pain to support, period.  You can't simply say: upgrade 
binutils, don't use this Bash version and so on.  No, you have to cope
with all the glitches of the shells, the assembler, the linker, the headers, 
the libraries, etc.  So please, please, please, don't gratuitously add 
another layer of difficulties on top of this mess.

> Not this academic quarter; they're using Python, which isn't affected.
> However, in past quarters I have had them build GCC, so they were
> affected.

But were they really affected? I mean, beyond scratching their head for 2 
minutes after seeing the triplet.

> Ah, OK, you must be referring to the current CVS, which has ripped out
> support for SunOS 4 and earlier.  I was referring to the latest stable
> version, GCC 3.3.2, which still has some files with sunos4* names.

Yes.  Only SunOS 5.x will be supported in GCC 3.4.

> But at any rate this discrepancy is a minor one, as I'm not proposing
> to rename all those files right now.

It was just to point out that it would IMHO be inconsistent to get rid of the 
Solaris moniker, now that GCC only supports Solaris.

-- 
Eric Botcazou