From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12904 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2009 07:55:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 12894 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2009 07:55:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 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; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:55:39 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CF42BAB4E; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:55:37 -0500 (EST) 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 hzU5G5toVkmF; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD9C92BAB1B; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4C4A7F5937; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:55:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:55:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Michael Snyder Subject: Re: [RFC] what should we do about COPYING? Message-ID: <20091221075520.GN2788@adacore.com> References: <20091218073249.GC2788@adacore.com> <4B2BBD07.2020408@vmware.com> <200912181743.02168.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20091220122013.GF2788@adacore.com> <4B2E3440.7070609@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B2E3440.7070609@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-12/txt/msg00294.txt.bz2 > Back then, simulators in GDB were still somewhat of a novel concept, > and we waffled about whether to officially consider them part of > GDB, or as a separate library that happened to be linked in - the > simulator could always be built as its own program, and GDB could be > built without simulator. Plus at the time we really really really > wanted a PPC simulator. :-) We still need the ppc simulator :) (although we have also started testing the ppc-elf GDB over qemu, with good results too). I don't see the rush in addressing this inconsistency with the rest of GDB, but I have a feeling that this will need to be addressed at some point. The argument that the sim is a library separate from GDB might have held for the sim ppc (assuming it was published elsewhere), but I am not sure it works for all sim implementations. But for now, I will take a break from licensing issues :). Thanks for the feedback! -- Joel