From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24281 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2005 14:20:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 24272 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2005 14:20:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.58) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:20:25 +0000 Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id jATEJK0n012340; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:19:20 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jATEJktZ001277; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:19:46 GMT Received: (from rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id jATEJkAd001275; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:19:46 GMT Subject: Re: ARM RDI From: Richard Earnshaw To: Simon Richter Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Mark Mitchell , GDB In-Reply-To: <438C6192.10109@hogyros.de> References: <438B8FAD.1020804@codesourcery.com> <1133259214.32658.36.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <20051129134436.GA22387@nevyn.them.org> <438C6192.10109@hogyros.de> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1133273985.32658.69.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:27:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00616.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 14:11, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > >>>1) Remove rdi-share from GDB entirely. > > >>I think this one is probably best now... I discussed it with Andrew at > >>the Summit and we agreed it was the way to go. But like dejagnu removal > >>it's taking a long time to finally do it... > > > Does anyone object? If not, let's just do it. > > For a number of CPUs, RDI is the only standard there is; it is the kind > of "obsolete" where they want people to buy their newer CPUs, not the > kind where there is a better standard. I'm fairly certain that there are > several trees where RDI works just fine as there are a number of > companies selling gdb based solutions for older ARM CPUs; the > interesting part will be getting those changes back from them. It's also obsolete in the GNU sense of 'nobody has stepped up to maintain the code'. Are you volunteering? R.