Re: [DynInst_API:] Pruning former platform support

[Barton Miller <bart@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok...keep vxworks, I'll OSF.

Thoughts on AIX?

--bart


> On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Jeff Hollingsworth <hollings@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Let's keep VxWorks a bit longer,  I am trying to get some money to keep that alive.
> 
> OSF was the operating system for Alpha, it can go.
> 
> Jeff
> 
>> On 1/10/2014 11:28 AM, Barton Miller wrote:
>> Hi Josh and thanks for this offer.  Yes, this type of cleanup is overdue.
>> 
>> Yes, we can definitely cut support for:
>> Alpha
>> MIPS
>> IRIX
>> Solaris
>> 
>> I'd like to get Jeff Hollingsworth's comments on vxworks (Jeff is cc'd).
>> 
>> And I'm not sure what OSF is.  Folks?
>> 
>> As for AIX, any comments on whether this will come up again with IBM?
>> 
>> --bart
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Josh Stone <jistone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As I look for minor tasks that I can help with, one possibility is to
>>> clean up platforms that used to be supported, but are no longer.
>>> 
>>> First looking at arch_* macros, arch_alpha and arch_mips have just one
>>> tiny occurrence each, and seem like obvious things to prune.
>>> 
>>> There are more os_* macros.  I think os_freebsd, os_linux, os_windows,
>>> and all the os_bg* platforms are the only ones with active support.
>>> That leaves os_aix, os_irix, os_osf, os_solaris, and os_vxworks which
>>> seem to not be supported anymore.
>>> 
>>> So, would patches be acceptable to remove code for these platforms?  As
>>> a first pass, I just intend to look around those mentioned macros, and
>>> any source files that were completely specific to those platforms.
>>> Later we might approach it a little more deeply, for example by removing
>>> unneeded abstractions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Josh
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dyninst-api mailing list
>>> Dyninst-api@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api
>