From dc171aef7b41c5d44b7f1a7c4adabe94958ffc05 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tobias Platen Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 14:48:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] remove dead links --- resources.mdwn | 1 - x-list.mdwn | 5 +---- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/resources.mdwn b/resources.mdwn index dc7e66569..628e72797 100644 --- a/resources.mdwn +++ b/resources.mdwn @@ -366,7 +366,6 @@ Some learning resources I found in the community: * [Using our Python Unit Tests(old)](http://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2019-March/000705.html) * -* # Other diff --git a/x-list.mdwn b/x-list.mdwn index 174de2e68..d108485f0 100644 --- a/x-list.mdwn +++ b/x-list.mdwn @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ guidelines and I believe they should be enforced: - https://riscv.org/risc-v-trademark-usage/ -Example 1: https://emb-riscv.github.io/ +Example: https://emb-riscv.github.io/ Implementation proposal that does not comply with the minimal M mode requirements and may not be RISC-V compliant. The “Embedded RISC-V” @@ -339,9 +339,6 @@ group and who is the chair? Using something like X-Embedded might be less risky assuming this may or may not be the Foundation’s official Embedded Working Group? It is hard to tell. It is suggestive. -Example 2: -https://github.com/cliffordwolf/xbitmanip/blob/master/xbitmanip-draft.pdf - Uses X- prefix, extends the specifications, doesn’t modify the RISC-V logo. Clearly fair use. -- 2.30.2