On Mon, 24 Apr 2023, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Gerald,
>
> > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023, Rainer Orth wrote:
> >> * We used a mixture of Solaris 2 and Solaris references. Since Solaris
> >> 1/SunOS 4 is ancient history by now, consistently use Solaris
> >> everywhere. Likewise, explicit references to Solaris 11 can go in
> >> many places since Solaris 11.3 and 11.4 is all GCC supports.
> >
> > Thanks for going through this - this is great. (I had a look recently
> > and wanted to raise that we have some older cruft that looked like it
> > could go.)
>
> true enough: it's been in urgent need of an update. My bad.
>
> >> Will commit to trunk soon. Ok for the gcc-13 branch, too?
> >
> > Yes, please.
> >
> > There's only a few suggestions/recommendations:
> >
> > "on Solaris" (without "a")-@uref{https://www.opencsw.org/,,OpenCSW}
> > +@uref{https://www.opencsw.org/,,OpenCSW}. However, the packages there
> > +are mostly outdated or actually harmful on Solaris 11.3 and 11.4.
> > @end itemize
> >
> > Would it make sense to simple drop this, then?
>
> I guess: my reason for keeping it, as mentioned in the description, was
> the potential use as Ada bootstrap compiler. However, given that I
> didn't try it (and wont) and it's unlikely that someone still running
> Solaris 11.3 suddendly finds themselves in need of GNAT, that's not a
> good reason actually. As the downside, when running a build on gcc211
> with OpenCSW installed, the included gmp broke my build and I needed a
> private installation instead.
>
> > In the following two cases
> >
> > +@file{/usr/gnu/bin/as}), are known to work. The current version, from
> > +GNU binutils 2.40, is known to work as well. Recent versions of the
> >
> > and
> >
> > +works, as does the latest version, from GNU binutils 2.40. However, it
> >
> > how about saying "The version from GNU binutil 2.40" and "as does the
> > version from GNU binutils 2.50", respectively?
> >
> > "current" and "latest" are fleeting concepts.
>
> Indeed :-) The references were meant to refer to the time of the GCC 13
> release, but given how lazy I am with updating install.texi, it's better
> to avoid this.
>
> > +Solaris @command{ld}, it is recommended to configure with
> >
> > Can we make this active form, i.e., "we recommend"? Or simply omit the
> > "it is recommended to" part. Both are shorter and clearer; personally I
> > recommend to latter.
>
> I went for "we recommend" because it's not a strict requirement:
> e.g. when GNU ld is not installed at all, there's no need for the options.
>
> > +library or the MPC library on a Solaris, the canonical
> >
> > "on Solaris" (without "a")
>
> Indeed, thanks for spotting this.
>
> This is the version I've committed to trunk after retesting.
>
> It would be good if one of the RMs could approve it for the gcc-13
> branch, too.
OK for gcc-13 branch.
Thanks,
Richard.
