On 14 June 2016 at 14:43, Xuetao Guan <g...@mprc.pku.edu.cn> wrote: >> On 20 May 2016 at 13:48, Riku Voipio <riku.voi...@iki.fi> wrote: >>> On torstaina 12. toukokuuta 2016 17.34.42 EEST, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> We should either fix our unicore32 support to use the real >>>> syscall numbers, or just drop it; since nobody has touched >>>> linux-user/unicore32 since 2012, and there have been no >>>> commits to target-unicore32 that aren't generic "clean up >>>> all targets" type patches since 2012 or 2013, and nobody >>>> has ever complained that the syscall numbers are all broken, >>>> my initial inclination is to say we should just drop this. >>>> >>>> Opinions? >> >>> I agree. I don't have a test setup for unicore, so unicore >>> has seen nothing but compile testing... >> >> I've put a note in the 2.7 Changelog saying we're going to >> remove unicore32-linux-user in 2.8.
> I'm the maintainer of target-unicore32. > Though there's no commit since 2012, we're using qemu (but > old version) to test our new kernel and software-images. > I'll upgrade to new qemu and fix syscall problem. Hi -- just a reminder that I would like to see the unicore32 support updated to use the correct syscall numbers if we are not to remove the code for 2.8. You have until about the middle of October before 2.8 softfreeze. thanks -- PMM
