On 11/21/19 7:01 AM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:49 AM Richard Henderson > <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: >> > >> How's that? He has been asked to split the linux-user stuff from the target >> skeleton stuff. > > ... > >> This argument would make more sense if there were more present here than a >> skeleton. > > Speaking about anatomy, I am opposed to upstreaming any "skeletons". > The other month, another community was dead serious wanting to > upstream code based on "proposal of the draft" (or was it "draft of > the proposal"), and now we want to upstream "skeletons"?? > > And even that "skeleton" can't be regularly built stage by stage, but > must resort to "enable configure at the end" cheap tricks? > > What happened to QEMU upstream?
You are over reacting. We're also talking about *2* patches before the "cheap trick" of enable at the end. The only alternative to the "cheap trick" is *1* patch, which no one wants. There really is a minimum amount of code that is required before *anything* will compile. We're not talking about applying anything at this stage. We're talking about patch review, and making the pieces small enough to actually review. I assume that Taylor and the revng guys are coordinating the actual meat of the port. I assume those will be presented in reviewable chunks, each of which will compile. Only when we see all of those will the whole thing be applied. r~
