Need current information for (old) --with-cpu flag in configure.in.

Hello,

  (I am working on gdb-6.6). In rs6000-tdep.c, we have the
comment:
  (Above the line: static struct variant variants[] =)

  /* ...

    If you add entries to this table, please be sure to
allow the new
    value as an argument to the --with-cpu flag, in
configure.in.  */

  However, the "--with-cpu" flag is missing in
gdb-6.6/configure.in.

  Please could you let me know the change intended here to
any of the
  configure scripts when adding a new cpu?

Thanks & Regards,
Anmol P. Paralkar

On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 03:57:05PM -0600, Anmol
Paralkar-B07584 wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>  (I am working on gdb-6.6). In rs6000-tdep.c, we have
the comment:
>  (Above the line: static struct variant variants[] =)
> 
>  /* ...
> 
>    If you add entries to this table, please be sure to
allow the new
>    value as an argument to the --with-cpu flag, in
configure.in.  */
> 
>  However, the "--with-cpu" flag is missing in
gdb-6.6/configure.in.
> 
>  Please could you let me know the change intended here
to any of the
>  configure scripts when adding a new cpu?

To be honest, I have no idea what that comment is referring
to.
--with-cpu only affects GCC, not GDB.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 17:02 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 03:57:05PM -0600, Anmol
Paralkar-B07584 wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> >  (I am working on gdb-6.6). In rs6000-tdep.c, we
have the comment:
> >  (Above the line: static struct variant variants[]
=)
> > 
> >  /* ...
> > 
> >    If you add entries to this table, please be
sure to allow the new
> >    value as an argument to the --with-cpu flag, in
configure.in.  */
> > 
> >  However, the "--with-cpu" flag is
missing in gdb-6.6/configure.in.
> > 
> >  Please could you let me know the change intended
here to any of the
> >  configure scripts when adding a new cpu?
> 
> To be honest, I have no idea what that comment is
referring to.
> --with-cpu only affects GCC, not GDB.

Could be configure.tgt, but seems unlikely.
The comment dates back to before the present repository
was created in 1999.  It could conceivably have been
cut/pasted
from gcc.