* sim/sh64
@ 2007-02-19 21:51 Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-02-19 22:40 ` sim/sh64 Ben Elliston
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2007-02-19 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches, Dave Brolley, Ben Elliston
I ran gdb_mbuild.sh today and it fell over because I didn't have
sim/sh64. I traced this back to the modules file:
date: 2002/02/28 06:07:39; author: bje; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1
* Omit sim/testsuite/sim/sh64 for now.
naked-sim -a !src/sim/sh64 !src/sim/testsuite/sim/sh64 src/sim
Anyone know what that's about? Can we get rid of it now? It means
sh64 doesn't end up in our tarballs.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: sim/sh64
2007-02-19 21:51 sim/sh64 Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2007-02-19 22:40 ` Ben Elliston
2007-02-20 12:43 ` sim/sh64 Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ben Elliston @ 2007-02-19 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: gdb-patches, Dave Brolley
> I ran gdb_mbuild.sh today and it fell over because I didn't have
> sim/sh64. I traced this back to the modules file:
>
> date: 2002/02/28 06:07:39; author: bje; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1
> * Omit sim/testsuite/sim/sh64 for now.
>
> naked-sim -a !src/sim/sh64 !src/sim/testsuite/sim/sh64 src/sim
>
> Anyone know what that's about? Can we get rid of it now? It means
> sh64 doesn't end up in our tarballs.
In 2002 (while working at Red Hat), I contributed the sh64 port.
Through a misunderstanding with Cagney on the protocol of GDB
submission, it was sidelined with that modules change. It appears that
modules change was never reverted.
Whether sh64 is included in GDB tarballs is up to the GDB maintainers,
but yes, you could get rid of that change (modulo the usual problems of
versioning the modules file!)
Cheers, Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: sim/sh64
2007-02-19 22:40 ` sim/sh64 Ben Elliston
@ 2007-02-20 12:43 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2007-02-20 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Elliston; +Cc: gdb-patches, Dave Brolley
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 09:38:46AM +1100, Ben Elliston wrote:
> Whether sh64 is included in GDB tarballs is up to the GDB maintainers,
> but yes, you could get rid of that change (modulo the usual problems of
> versioning the modules file!)
I have updated the modules file.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-02-20 12:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-02-19 21:51 sim/sh64 Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-02-19 22:40 ` sim/sh64 Ben Elliston
2007-02-20 12:43 ` sim/sh64 Daniel Jacobowitz
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox