From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50753) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b3jrd-0006X0-TG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 May 2016 08:49:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b3jrY-0000aQ-Gq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 May 2016 08:49:13 -0400 Received: from jessie.kos.to ([212.47.231.226]:53124 helo=pilvi.kos.to) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b3jrY-0000UB-AV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 May 2016 08:49:08 -0400 From: Riku Voipio Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 15:48:48 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] proposal: drop linux-user unicore32 support from QEMU List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , Guan Xuetao On torstaina 12. toukokuuta 2016 17.34.42 EEST, Peter Maydell wrote: > QEMU has something that claims to be linux-user support for > the unicore32 guest CPU. However the syscall numbers in > linux-user/unicore32 are nothing like those actually implemented > in the upstream kernel (which uses asm-generic syscall numbers). > > 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... Riku