Paul Brook wrote: > > > Basing work on the gcc/binutils code doesn't help me either because I > > > wrote most of that code in the first place :-) > > > > Since the idea is for someone else do it, that doesn't matter. > > > > I'm wondering why, if it were done, it would be a problem for you to > > contribute in future in the areas which you contribute to now. > > Because a large proportion of my contributions, and most of my > interest is in this area.
Sorry, I guess my question wasn't clear. I'm not asking why it would be a problem for you to stop contributing to ARM support in Qemu. That's not the meaning of my question above. Of course it would be a problem for all of us if you had to stop. I am asking why you think you'd have to stop contributing to the pre-ARMv6 feature set, given that it's unrelated to the restrictions that you're bound by. If it's post-ARMv6 contributions that you're interested in, you can't contribute them now or in future; so someone else contributing changes in that area makes no difference to you. Or does it? That's my question; I don't see why post-ARMv6 functionality in Qemu would prevent you from contributing to the pre-ARMv6 functionality (devices, CPU model etc.), which is the only area you're publically able to contribute now anyway. I realise they would overlap substantially in the code, but that doesn't mean you have to contribute any changes or reveal any information which depends on the ARMv6 or later documentation. I don't see why it would make a difference to what you're able to do, and that's why I'm asking why you think it would. Thanks, -- Jamie _______________________________________________ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
