Le jeu. 27 août 2020 16:51, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> a écrit :
> On 27/08/2020 16.19, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 14:52, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> What's next? moxie? ... apart from the tree-wide clean-ups and trivial > >> fixes, moxie did not have any major updates since 2013 when it has been > >> added, as far as I can see ... is anybody still using it? > > > > I was never very clear on how much use moxie had to start with... > > > > An extremely rough-and-ready guide to how well-loved a target > > is might be "did it get converted to TranslatorOps?". Unconverted: > > * avr > > * cris > > * lm32 (deprecation in progress) > > * microblaze (rth just posted patches for this) > > * moxie > > * nios2 > > * tilegx (deprecation in progress) > > * unicore32 (deprecation in progress) > > Another criteria might be: Do we have a tcg, qtest or acceptance test to > check that the target is still working? > And to some extent "is there documentation publicly available?" as it makes maintenance by others possible. > - avr has an acceptance test > > - cris has tcg tests > > - lm32 has tcg tests > > - microblaze has acceptance tests (and one trivial qtest) > > - moxie ... has only one very trivial qtest (boot-serial-test) > > - nios2 has an acceptance test > > - tilegx does not have any tests at all > > - unicore32 does not have any tests at all > (not counting the trivial machine-none-test) > > So from that point of view, unicore32, tilegx and moxie are the > candidates for deprecation. > > > I think dropping the moxie maintainer an email to ask about > > the architecture's status wouldn't be a bad idea if you > > wanted to start that ball rolling. > > Ok, good idea, I'll try to write a mail later today. > > Thomas > > >
