Hi, Regarding or1k, we (ÅAC Microtec/Clyde Space) are currently using it, together with RTEMS, in some of our products[0], and are thus quite interested in its continued life as a part of RTEMS, at least in the foreseeable future (i.e. RTEMS 5).
With regards to the upstreaming of GCC, there are still ongoing work on this for or1k at https://github.com/stffrdhrn/gcc . [0] http://aacmicrotec.com/products/spacecraft-subsystems/avionics/siriusobc/ http://aacmicrotec.com/products/spacecraft-subsystems/avionics/siriustcm/ -- Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner....@gmail.com> ÅAC Microtec AB | Clyde Space Ltd. On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 10:01 +0100, Hesham Almatary wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > Yes, I agree with you. Furthermore, most of the or1k hardware and software > folks are moving to riscv now. > > Should we make it obsolete? > > Cheers, > Hesham > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 at 7:10 am, Sebastian Huber > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > the or1k ecosystem has a major problem with their non-FSF GCC from my > > point of view which is maintained here: > > > > https://github.com/openrisc/or1k-gcc > > > > The last commit was in 2016. It looks like a dead project to me. > > > > Given the momentum RISC-V has currently why would someone still want to > > use or1k? All RISC-V tools are upstream and well maintained. It is the > > target with the most helpful and responsive maintainers that I worked > > with so far. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > devel@rtems.org > > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel