On 8/25/2014 5:10 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 25/08/14 11:45, Daniel Cederman wrote: >> --- >> cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/rtems/score/cpu.h | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/rtems/score/cpu.h >> b/cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/rtems/score/cpu.h >> index 9c38b55..d4c2ef0 100644 >> --- a/cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/rtems/score/cpu.h >> +++ b/cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/rtems/score/cpu.h >> @@ -1203,9 +1203,11 @@ register struct Per_CPU_Control >> *_SPARC_Per_CPU_current __asm__( "g6" ); >> >> void _CPU_SMP_Send_interrupt( uint32_t target_processor_index ); >> >> + #if defined(__leon__) >> void _BSP_Start_multitasking( Context_Control *heir ) >> RTEMS_COMPILER_NO_RETURN_ATTRIBUTE; >> #define _CPU_Start_multitasking _BSP_Start_multitasking >> + #endif > In case it is LEON specific, then it should have a LEON specific name. > What's the overall rationale?
What happens on all other architectures/variants? Can this simply be a matter of deferring the selection/implementation to the BSP? We do that for other cases where the precise CPU model must be known. The interface from the score/cpu is well known and is mostly implemented in score/cpu. But sometimes, it can't be. -- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
