Hi,
That would be -1 for me too.
Reason 1 from Nathan could change my vote.
But reason 2 would be a shame. We have one of the few a RTOS that
support CPUs outside ARM.
TBH, there is no solid technical reason to change this rule. Most of the
things mentioned in this comment are syntactic sugar that can be
supported with macros.
Sebastien
Le 30/08/2022 à 03:18, Nathan Hartman a écrit :
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 7:54 PM Alan Rosenthal <alan.rosent...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi!
What needs to be done to open the discussion to consider changing the
rules?
Also please see a very detailed comment on the github issue here by
@robertlipe:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/6896#issuecomment-1227971503
Basically what Greg said: motivate someone of the PPMC to call a vote.
Just FYI, based on what Byron points out with regard to the Zilog families
needing C89 (and possibly other archs that weren't mentioned), I would
probably vote -1 unless either:
1) there is a toolchain, which is complete (not "experimental") that
supports these platforms, or:
2) someone can convince me that no one cares about these architectures
anymore, such as if it's shown that NuttX already contains significant
breakage on these platforms that prevents them from working anyway, no one
has complained, and it has gone unfixed for several years
If 1 or 2 (or both) I'm okay with it. But if changing the rules will leave
users in the dust, then I'm not okay with it.
Just my thoughts... I'll be glad to hear the thoughts of others.
Cheers,
Nathan
