From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12586 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2002 18:05:06 -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 12577 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2002 18:05:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mms3.broadcom.com) (63.70.210.38) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2002 18:05:04 -0000 Received: from 63.70.210.1 by mms3.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom MMS-3 SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 09 Apr 2002 11:04:59 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 1e1caf3a-b686-11d4-a6a3-00508bfc9ae5 Received: from dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com (dt-sj3-118 [10.21.64.118]) by mail-sj1-5.sj.broadcom.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g39I531S025024; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cgd@localhost) by dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com ( 8.9.1/SJ8.9.1) id LAA18201; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:05:01 -0700 (PDT) To: bje@redhat.com cc: "Andrew Cagney" , "Nick Clifton" , "Andrew Cagney" , "Geoff Keating" , "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> <3CB1C857.9080902@cygnus.com> <15538.58681.963609.704984@toenail.toronto.redhat.com> From: cgd@broadcom.com Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 11:05:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: bje@redhat.com's message of "Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:58:02 +0000 (UTC)" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 10ADF2C13199828-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 At Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:58:02 +0000 (UTC), "Ben Elliston" wrote: > >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney writes: > > >> 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. > > Andrew> Is it unhelpful? The people with the best idea for what to do with the > Andrew> common framework are most likely going to be those that are actively > Andrew> developing simulators. Right now that is CGD (Chris D). > > While I agree with this point, I also like the idea of having a > devil's advocate to approve sim/common patches. In the heat of the > moment, it's easy to think of patches to sim/common to solve > port-specific problems that are not in the best interest of all > simulators. For what it's worth, I agree with Ben here. 8-) I'd _prefer_ to have others review my changes (as long i can get that review in a timely fashion)... chris