This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [maint] sim and common
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- To: Ben Elliston <bje at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>,Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>,Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>,Chris Demetriou <cgd at broadcom dot com>,"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 12:41:59 -0400
- Subject: Re: [maint] sim and common
- References: <3C85A44B.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <email@example.com> 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