From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27031 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2002 03:10:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26906 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2002 03:10:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2002 03:10:28 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520363F30; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 22:10:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DE4379F.4030209@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:10:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cgd@broadcom.com Cc: Richard Sandiford , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: sim/mips patch: add support for more NEC VR targets References: <3DE417F8.8030209@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00671.txt.bz2 > Not really. 8-) > > First of all i'm not sure which question you were trying to answer, > even (today's, i.e. "veto, anyone?" or a previous question). > > Is your intent here to say that really, "the mips sim will/must be > done the way you outline above," or is it to provide a rationale for > why you think it should be done that way. (to my mind, it could be > either; you're a mips sim maintainer long before i got here.) This is the way it has (ment to) been done for all MIPS ISA variants since igen replaced gencode. You've proposed a change to that process so I'm [trying to] explain the rationale behind the current status-quo :-) Andrew > Based on what you've said above, I still don't agree that your > suggested way of doing this is the right one.