-1 for the same reasons On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, 11:30 Sebastien Lorquet, <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote:
> 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 > > >
