From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 109887 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2016 00:00:35 -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 109860 invoked by uid 89); 2 Apr 2016 00:00:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mailapp01.imgtec.com Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com (HELO mailapp01.imgtec.com) (195.59.15.196) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 02 Apr 2016 00:00:32 +0000 Received: from hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org (unknown [10.100.10.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 8219D35813B3B; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 01:00:26 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.100.200.215] (10.100.200.215) by hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org (10.100.10.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.266.1; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 01:00:30 +0100 Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 00:00:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Pedro Alves CC: Yao Qi , Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Remove support for "target m32rsdi" and "target mips/pmon/ddb/rockhopper/lsi" In-Reply-To: <56FD12FE.1030300@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <1458230389-28233-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <8637rivld3.fsf@gmail.com> <56F13269.8020602@redhat.com> <56FD12FE.1030300@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Pedro Alves wrote: > I'll push the patch in in a bit. NB it looks to me `mips_r3041_reg_names' is now dead. We just *might* consider rewiring it like `mips_tx39_reg_names', but that would require defining another BFD machine type and I doubt anybody cares about the R3041 anymore (cf. the relevant comment you've just removed). So if you care to remove it too, then I'll appreciate it and a change to do so is preapproved. Given that the variable is static I wonder why it hasn't triggered a compilation error in the build actually. Maciej