From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id BogcAH5DRWfV3j8AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:41:50 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1732592509; bh=yXg3DYmr7X5U3UAVkcE3eFa4phwKFLizSsyi3eEpH4M=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=XlxgcqYunEu3L6Xjq8/1y0Zyb5a15HLfmreCqZ556pvhtOcznwpa9fPh6RK+v5xNl N2+cHSKt3c5mpW0WNWkEGCckw+4QGjvz3FdO34t4rg1NyDUcmMSkYXEmWoWPI5EujO 5cQUAH/pVJ86iYrmVBmLvOarH4hCxV2IOIoqSHHM= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id C0D381E092; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:41:49 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=K4ChqfNC; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=TEcYTxlx; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA4981E08F for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:41:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72236385829B for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:41:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEFF33858D38; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:41:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org EEFF33858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org EEFF33858D38 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1732592488; cv=none; b=rzbsb/6g1kWDjgoERqZetKyo16uA1UUtc5lkRm51mb2JCTlrQRWYOd4kDNyL4oyvAVnON5d4so5Xsb27wiTTHljydWDSBiRbKZlMswI+/FGccERdB7tpGVNa2ZUG1QowRAhP0rbrfFE9k2cOiloWfUyHyIaDfuslcJnwTBCtmm4= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1732592488; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yXg3DYmr7X5U3UAVkcE3eFa4phwKFLizSsyi3eEpH4M=; h=DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Subject:To:From; b=q4WJQjYydSvCAaJ4pLwN/TzQfkWi8aW8jgAmcfEDZ7Qiix5yt4N96fn9Q9BOE3aIsoh8q9TXjKuaq6b2w0pbtoh5FcsN99NLpIhoIiIIQ19xtwkKCq3Pf1B/D/Ig4/kRr3sy0HVCvqmjNwGkslb1WJ6P3EwzSwdRpDsLPFkmnHw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EEFF33858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=K4ChqfNC; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=TEcYTxlx DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1732592487; bh=yXg3DYmr7X5U3UAVkcE3eFa4phwKFLizSsyi3eEpH4M=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=K4ChqfNCy8mLciTHoOth75vjSQUoQAJpmPdaonOURlKjzn+7BTM+fYwwKv1H4sSNW Gw8x3L7tL9zOJM+jgzj7nVoqvayRcZUh+yDrslyEdoK8Xb1wbM3OuYBSV4dU3PR+R/ 3J1jnSFO1TKduTYu4EMc96J7h2UtoNBp3+P8sJ8I= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7A3E51E091; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:41:27 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1732592485; bh=yXg3DYmr7X5U3UAVkcE3eFa4phwKFLizSsyi3eEpH4M=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=TEcYTxlx3fXV/KmH06OEOlSydgjB5ulCQiX3Tqapa/+rE38m03O2fuTvyTL9bQ6xZ wYKyJix3Rz4u8L3jDfzCbuBbks2ydkHPN4XPH0v+PG5oPCQjWp/YuL4MQ/9WRLqLcu By/23C4di6yOG3CtwE4JlTEZr81/xVeDDml5u4Os= Received: from [10.0.0.11] (modemcable238.237-201-24.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.237.238]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B14271E08F; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:41:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9666dcc3-cdad-4c1d-8c8a-8bb4cc6b1ec7@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:41:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFA][PATCH] Remove gdb support for Nios II target To: Sandra Loosemore , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: qiyao@sourceware.org References: Content-Language: en-US From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org On 2024-11-25 16:12, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > The attached patch removes gdb support for the Nios II target, which has been EOL'ed by the vendor. I've already pushed the patch to remove support from GCC: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2024-November/413482.html > > I've also got a separate binutils patch I'm about to post and I'd like to get them both in at the same time. > > Can someone approve this patch? I'm not actually the gdb maintainer for this target; Yao Qi is listed but hasn't been active in a while. > > -Sandra The patch LGTM, I just can't remember or find what's our policy for this, how much time we want to keep support for a target after gcc has dropped support for it. The last gcc release with support for it was gcc 14, released in May 2024. gdb 15 was released in July 2024. So if we want to have at least one gdb release after the last gcc supporting a given arch, we already have it, meaning this patch could be merged right away (I would be fine with that). Can someone else give a second opinion? Simon