From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30691 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2002 16:42:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30680 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2002 16:42:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2002 16:42:09 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A1E3CBF; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 12:41:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CB1C857.9080902@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 09:42:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Elliston Cc: Nick Clifton , Andrew Cagney , Geoff Keating , Chris Demetriou , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] sim and common References: <3C85A44B.6090403@cygnus.com> <15537.43529.140988.838892@toenail.toronto.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2 > "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney writes: > > > Andrew> I'm wondering if it would be helpful for sim specific > Andrew> maintainers (at least for sim/common based sims) to have > Andrew> implicit approval/write permission on the sim/common > Andrew> directory. > > Why do you feel it would be helpful? I don't think there has been any > evidence that patch approvals for sim/common has been a bottleneck or > indeed even a problem for anyone to date. Is it unhelpful? The people with the best idea for what to do with the common framework are most likely going to be those that are actively developing simulators. Right now that is CGD (Chris D). Anyway, further down in the thread, Frank has stated that, in his opinion, GDB's global write maintainers have ``global write'' on sim/common. Is this what you understand? (Unless otherwise stated, global-write stops when there is a maintainer). > Andrew> Which reminds me, Stephane Carrez should really be listed as > Andrew> the m68hc11 maintainer. Unless, that is, GDB is going to > Andrew> assume that a GDB target maintainer implicitly maintains the > Andrew> corresponding SIM. > > I'm happy enough with that idea, provided that there is a mechanism > for people to be listed explicitly as sim maintainers, overriding the > corresponding GDB maintainer for that port. GDB's isa/abi, native, host and sim maintainers are recognized as separate independant roles (but are sometimes the same person). The above was a suggestion for how to handle the situtation where the SIM role is vacent. I think the consensus is that the SIM maintainers should be identified separatly and explicitly. > There are potential sim > maintainers who are capable of working on the sim but might not be > willing/able to work on GDB as well. I don't understand. Perhaphs you're thinking of a situtation like sim/arm/ or sim/ppc/. There are two roles: GDB's sim maintainer (NickC, Cagney/GeoffK); and (independant of GDB) the original developers/contributors (Arm Ltd?, Cagney). (Yes, again, they can be the same person). enjoy, Andrew