> On Mar 23, 2015, at 16:23 , Sebastian Huber > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > > ----- Am 23. Mrz 2015 um 16:51 schrieb Gedare Bloom ged...@gwu.edu: > >> I guess this is a problem for 16-bit targets? changing the constants >> to 16UL and 8UL also should work. A comment should be made that this >> is only for 16-bit targets. If we rid RTEMS of those, we can get rid >> of some of these shenanigans... > > It would be interesting to know if we have at least one real application > running RTEMS on a 16-bit target. Apart from warning fixes I don't see any > activity in this area. > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Late answer, I'm catching up on old e-mails. I think if 16 bit Harvard architecture (64K instruction / 64K data) targets are no longer supportable then 16 bit should be deprecated and then abandoned. If you can still do a lot with RTEMS in 128K then that useful subset of the code should be identified and kept 16 bit clean, that would be a good requirement on developers and that part of the code base. That is, if anyone wants to do that, I currently use 4MB instruction / 4MB data as my minimal targets that can be comfortably extended during the support life time (I want TCP/IP and NFS as part of my minimum, your mileage will definitely vary). Peter ----------------- Peter Dufault HD Associates, Inc. Software and System Engineering _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
