Re: [PATCH 1/2] sim: riscv: new port

[Jim Wilson <jimw@sifive.com>]

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 6:38 PM Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> my plans are to merge this one even if it is simpler & not as complete,
> and then drop the cgen one on top of it once we think it's in a good
> state.
>

OK.  The cgen one has trouble with extensions, as it must explicitly define
every supported arch variation last time I checked, and there are far too
many to specify.  In your simulator, it is trivial to handle extensions, we
just check a flag at runtime.

i'm aware that there's a squashed one with updates not authored by me in
> the riscv repos.  i specifically avoided those as the authorship is not
> clear and i didn't want to untangle copyright assignments.  so i started
> with the last one purely by me and updated it to work with what has been
> merged into the upstream tree.  i'm happy to merge fixes you've come up
> with since i last did any real work, but i want to make sure to keep them
> independent for authorship & copyright assignment purposes.
>

That is fine.   All of the people are Andes or SiFive (or both depending on
date) employees so they all have assignments.  But I don't really care
about which source tree got added to FSf GDB.  I just was hoping someone
else would do the work.  We can switch to your version and then add bug
fixes as necessary.

Jim