On 15/12/16 23:34, Chris Johns wrote:
On 15/12/2016 18:02, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 14/12/16 22:15, Chris Johns wrote:
On 15/12/2016 00:39, Sebastian Huber wrote:
[...]
Would the "tiny" footprint be smaller if all internal services
including compiler thread support are made C11? Could this actually be
done? Parts of POSIX has been creeping in over time so the position is
a little confused at the moment. I am not sure about a bits and pieces
approach, maybe a full switch is made.
Yes, the footprint would be smaller. If we provide self-contained
threads, then the footprint would be much smaller, e.g. no object
administration, no heap.
Great. This is a powerful reason to look at moving in this direction
and removing the remaining POSIX usage in libstdthreads.
A brief audit of rtems.git shows the change is possible with less than
30 Classic task creates and a similar number of semaphore creates so a
full change look reachable which is nice.
Should we look at moving all internal services to C11 and standardise
it? I think there is value in doing this. It can be a post 4.12 branch
activity.
In contrast to the C11 mutexes, I don't see a real value in moving from
Classic API tasks to C11 threads. The Classic API you have more control
over task attributes, modes, priority, stack size, etc.
I created two tickets:
https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2842
https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2843
Joel, Gedare, what is your opinion with respect to C11 mutexes?
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
