From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12222 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2013 12:01:37 -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 12189 invoked by uid 89); 21 Mar 2013 12:01:29 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mail-la0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-la0-f41.google.com) (209.85.215.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:01:27 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fo12so5010242lab.0 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:01:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.147.36 with SMTP id th4mr7542245lab.19.1363867284199; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.37.35 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:01:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5149A3F7.4040403@redhat.com> References: <1363576183-5544-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1363700147.23712.277.camel@laria> <514982F1.4080906@codesourcery.com> <5149A3F7.4040403@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:24:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove doc on OpenRISC 1000 From: Franck Jullien To: Pedro Alves Cc: Yao Qi , jeremy.bennett@embecosm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg00778.txt.bz2 2013/3/20 Pedro Alves : > On 03/20/2013 09:35 AM, Yao Qi wrote: >> [My mail sent yesterday didn't show in the mail archive, so send it again.] >> >> On 03/19/2013 09:35 PM, Jeremy Bennett wrote: >>> It is quite likely the GDB code for OpenRISC 1000 was never submitted. >>> The whole GNU tool chain was developed around 2000-2002, but only >>> binutils ever committed its code. The tool chain is still widely used >>> and maintained atwww.opencores.org. >> >> Hi Jeremy, >> The patch was submitted in the link I gave in my first mail, but only >> the doc bit was approved and committed. I can't tell why the non-doc >> bits were not approved. >> >>> >>> I've copied Franck Jullien, who is the most active developer of the >>> OpenRISC GDB port at present (I was in the past). The alternative to >>> deleting the documentation is to submit the port. >> >> If the port can be submitted soon (in 2~3 months maybe?), I am fine to >> keep the doc there, because it has been there for 10 years. Otherwise, >> I prefer to remove them first, personally. > > I'd prefer removing them from our tree too (and not wait). > 10 years have passed, and lots of non-"target remote" targets have > been yanked from the tree meanwhile -- I'm not familiar with OpenRISC, > but it's arguable whether we want a new "target jtag" nowadays, > compared to using the remote target (against something that talks jtag), > and perhaps we have better mechanisms for "info or1k spr" today > too (I don't know what that actually does). > > I think starting from scratch with a clean submission, that > includes the corresponding docs would make a lot of sense. > > -- > Pedro Alves > Hi, Our OpenRISC port is not ready yet. So, I think you're right. You can remove the old openrisc documentation and we'll start from scratch with a clean submission. Franck.