On Tuesday 22 November 2011 20:48:15 Michael Hope wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > Otherwise, I agree with Mike: Why is it needed to disable 'sim' in the
> > cross-gdb? If the build is broken for some archs, it should rather be
> > fixed. At least, disabling/enabling 'sim' should be a config option,
> > so users that want to try and/or fix it have an easy way to.
> 
> I'd like to disable sim as it isn't useful when building for a GLIBC
> target and it's one more thing to support.  ARM don't want to
> distribute a binary simulator due to IP reasons which I must admit
> I've never understood :)

that's not generally true.  it depends on the target whether the sim supports 
Linux syscalls, dynamic libraries, etc...

the Blackfin sim certainly supports not only newlib/bare metal code (which also 
includes Linux/bootloaders), but also uClibc/FDPIC/FLAT Linux user programs.  
i've seen other sims in there that support Linux userland targets.

sounds like it should be made into a config option for people to control if 
*they* don't want the sim.
-mike