This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Remove doc on OpenRISC 1000
- From: Franck Jullien <franck dot jullien at gmail dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>, jeremy dot bennett at embecosm dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:01:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove doc on OpenRISC 1000
- References: <1363576183-5544-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <1363700147 dot 23712 dot 277 dot camel at laria> <514982F1 dot 4080906 at codesourcery dot com> <5149A3F7 dot 4040403 at redhat dot com>
2013/3/20 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>:
> On 03/20/2013 09:35 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
>> [My mail sent yesterday didn't show in the mail archive, so send it again.]
>>
>> On 03/19/2013 09:35 PM, Jeremy Bennett wrote:
>>> It is quite likely the GDB code for OpenRISC 1000 was never submitted.
>>> The whole GNU tool chain was developed around 2000-2002, but only
>>> binutils ever committed its code. The tool chain is still widely used
>>> and maintained atwww.opencores.org.
>>
>> Hi Jeremy,
>> The patch was submitted in the link I gave in my first mail, but only
>> the doc bit was approved and committed. I can't tell why the non-doc
>> bits were not approved.
>>
>>>
>>> I've copied Franck Jullien, who is the most active developer of the
>>> OpenRISC GDB port at present (I was in the past). The alternative to
>>> deleting the documentation is to submit the port.
>>
>> If the port can be submitted soon (in 2~3 months maybe?), I am fine to
>> keep the doc there, because it has been there for 10 years. Otherwise,
>> I prefer to remove them first, personally.
>
> I'd prefer removing them from our tree too (and not wait).
> 10 years have passed, and lots of non-"target remote" targets have
> been yanked from the tree meanwhile -- I'm not familiar with OpenRISC,
> but it's arguable whether we want a new "target jtag" nowadays,
> compared to using the remote target (against something that talks jtag),
> and perhaps we have better mechanisms for "info or1k spr" today
> too (I don't know what that actually does).
>
> I think starting from scratch with a clean submission, that
> includes the corresponding docs would make a lot of sense.
>
> --
> Pedro Alves
>
Hi,
Our OpenRISC port is not ready yet. So, I think you're right.
You can remove the old openrisc documentation and we'll
start from scratch with a clean submission.
Franck.