This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [maint] sim and common
- From: Ben Elliston <bje at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus 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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 08:57:29 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [maint] sim and common
- References: <3C85A44B.email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><3CB1C857.email@example.com>
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
Andrew> Anyway, further down in the thread, Frank has stated that,
Andrew> in his opinion, GDB's global write maintainers have ``global
Andrew> write'' on sim/common. Is this what you understand?
I had not seen that, but okay.
Andrew> The above was a suggestion for how to handle the situtation
Andrew> where the SIM role is vacent. I think the consensus is that
Andrew> the SIM maintainers should be identified separatly and