From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 675 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2009 13:56:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 32601 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2009 13:56:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_14 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:56:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF0F2BAC5C; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id PLXIfGGX41fJ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555FE2BAAB6; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5711CF5CFA; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: don.lee@sunplusct.com Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support new target S+core 3, a variant of S+core Message-ID: <20090319135606.GB583@adacore.com> References: <20090317155743.GA31979@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00396.txt.bz2 Just for the record: I just sent Don a private message asking if Qinwei could approve the S+core part or not. So I will not address this part. > --- src/gdb/configure.tgt 2009-03-16 23:04:14.000000000 +0800 > +++ src.mod/gdb/configure.tgt 2009-03-17 09:26:44.000000000 +0800 > @@ -375,7 +375,11 @@ > > score-*-*) > # Target: S+core embedded system > - gdb_target_obs="score-tdep.o" > + gdb_target_obs="score-tdep.o corelow.o" > + if test -f ../sim/score/Makefile; then > + gdb_sim=../sim/score/libsim.a > + fi > + build_gdbserver=yes > ;; > > sh*-*-linux*) Regarding this change, I am 50-50, leaning towards accepting it. Cons: There is no score simulator and you are not planning on contributing it. So, it is a useless change as far as the FSF is concerned. As such, I don't see why we should accept it. Maintaining small local changes in your own tree is very easy. Pros: I can't see any. That being said, the reason why I'm split on this is that it wouldn't cost us much to accept the change. I don't see how it could cause any trouble. GDB Global Maintainers: Do we have a policy on this sort of change? -- Joel