Mark Mitchell wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 12:41:43PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> >>> * mips-wrs-windiss >>> * powerpc-wrs-windiss >>> I don't think these were supposed to be in the FSF tree at all, were >>> they? >> >> >> >> This question belongs more in this thread than in the fixproto one so >> I'll reask it: Why do you think this? I seem to remember asking about this some years ago, and finding out that its existence was not documented anywhere public, which it still isn't. It's also odd that a VxWorks simulation environment is sufficiently different from VxWorks that it needs a different configuration.
> Putting it more strongly, I think these should stay. OK, I stand corrected. > WindISS is a Wind River simulation environment (including C library), > and is still available; Wind River ships WindISS with some of its > development platforms. OK. :-) Your job to keep it running. Care to list yourself in MAINTAINERS? > I know that we've been promising pdated VxWorks configurations for a > long time, and it's reasonable to wonder if we're serious. But, we are; > we've been pushing out the VxWorks 6.x binutils bits actively of late, > and as soon as those are in, we'll do GCC. > > We want the binutils bits to go in first, so that we can test the GCC > bits with the actual FSF binutils bits. Our current internal versions > are based on GCC 3.3.2 and we have some ugly binutils hacks that are > being cleaned up as we push out to the FSF.
