On 2021-09-13 11:05 a.m., Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 9/13/2021 8:58 AM, John David Anglin wrote: >> On 2021-09-13 9:53 a.m., Jeff Law wrote: >>>> It is in fact also hpux11*, thus all 32bit pa configs that do not support >>>> DWARF (for whatever reasons). >>> We used embedded stabs for SOM (the native format for 32bit PA). SOM is a >>> variant of COFF and could easily support dwarf I would think since >>> it had support for fairly arbitrary sections. Hell, it was already >>> supporting embedded stabs as well as HP's proprietary debugging format. >>> >>> But I'd consider 32bit SOM on hpux11 dead too :-) >> I don't disagree but 32bit SOM still builds on hpux11: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-August/718130.html >> >> Suspect the change will cause a lot of warnings. > It might, but with stabs going away something needs to be done with these > legacy systems. Either they need to move into the modern world, > deal with the diagnostic or get dropped. I believe the 32-bit SOM target should be deprecated. I'm the only one maintaining it and I had some health issues earlier this year. The current versions should suffice for several years.
My main interest is the Debian parisc-linux target. It's fully up to date and thousands of packages are available. Most kernels are 64-bit. Since there's no 64-bit runtime for Linux, we still need the 64-bit hpux target for 64-bit compile testing. > >> >> There is some support for hpux10/11 in qemu but it takes a lot of work to >> provide the build infrastructure needed for gcc. > I would think so. Recently had to move my build infrastructure to a "new" machine, so I'm fully aware that it's not easy. > >> >> DWARF isn't supported because we lack named sections. That could be worked >> around >> but probably the gdb versions that work on 32-bit hpux11 wouldn't support >> DWARF. > I'd be a bit surprised if that were true. dwarf support has been around a > long long time in GDB. Hell, it was around when I did the original > 64bit PA work back in the 90s. There's a chance it might work with the right section names. However dwarf 5 wouldn't be supported. That's an issue that I noticed recently. Dave -- John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
