From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 44595 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2018 20:03:34 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 44572 invoked by uid 89); 27 Nov 2018 20:03:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=dig, Hx-languages-length:1078 X-HELO: mail.baldwin.cx Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (HELO mail.baldwin.cx) (96.47.65.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 20:03:31 +0000 Received: from John-Baldwins-MacBook-Pro-2.local (ralph.baldwin.cx [66.234.199.215]) by mail.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C17B10AFCD; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:03:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sim/opcodes: Allow use of out of tree cgen source directory To: Simon Marchi , Andrew Burgess References: <0745ff244d76a8cd8ec7e7b9a53840f3773a139d.1541525137.git.andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <20181127112112.GC2834@embecosm.com> <6f1e8a0d0901e5c97842fc153f992d3a@polymtl.ca> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, vapier@gentoo.org From: John Baldwin Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <5cf23800-dc4b-e85e-8925-28c8648e4d66@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 20:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6f1e8a0d0901e5c97842fc153f992d3a@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg00479.txt.bz2 On 11/27/18 11:47 AM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-11-27 06:21, Andrew Burgess wrote: >> Not as far as I can tell. I left it in just in case, but as far as I >> can tell there's no way to "install" CGEN. I'd be happy to drop the >> ../lib/cgen references (the else block) completely, and then validate >> that we have a CGEN source tree or error.... But the above seemed like >> the least invasive change. > > From what I understand from you description, there's no way it could > have been useful... but again, it's not hard to leave it there just to > be safe. It's not my decision anyway :). > > By the way, maybe this should still be sent to binutils for the opcodes > part? My vote would actually be to remove it if it isn't really useful. If someone really needs it in the future they can always dig it out of the history. -- John Baldwin                                                                            Â