On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: >> I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development >> cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation >> this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google Code-In, >> and bumping the tool versions could be a set of tasks. If you would >> like to do one or a few as a sample, then we can have high school >> students do the rest during the GCI program period. > > I am planing to talk to Joel about the RSB and it's configuration files. > The RSB has arrived at an interesting place where I am not sure we want > all versions in an RSB. If we strip back the configurations to just the > valid ones we will then need to have a specific versions for specific > releases. This would simplify the number of files. > Sounds good.
> It would be nice to resolve this before adding 4.12 support. > And I am still thinking if we do GCI it will make a nice set of tasks. > Chris > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
