> > I am asking these questions because a new port has more moving parts > than other RTEMS project. For example: > > + toolchain. If there is a c6x-elf, myself or Sebastian can usually add a > -rtems target pretty quickly. We have FSF assignment paperwork so that > much is handled. But a toolchain includes binutils, gcc, gdb, and newlib. > Newlib has to have at least setjmp/longjmp support for the CPU. > > + If available, a free simulator is nice because it eases initial > development > and long-term testing even if the simulator doesn't have interrupt > support. > > + A BSP for the simulator. > > + A BSP for reference hardware. > > You can't have a port without at least one BSP. Sometimes there are two > but you have to have one of those. It is highly desirable to have a BSP > that is easily available and affordable to the community. > > If you decide to do this, we need to assess the tool chain situation. > My quick check of the source looks OK. I tried to build a tic6x-elf > tool chain from the tools master and it failed in gcc. I have emailed > the port maintainer to see if this is going to be an ongoing issue. > An unmaintained or lightly toolchain which is broken now is not a > good sign. > > Yes, I know that toolchain question is a hard one. As for me it is even harder than porting question itself. I will try to build the toolchain and run some applications in old simulators (included in CCSv5). After that, I am going to investigate how RTEMS works (initialization, context switches, interrupts). -- Regards, Denis Obrezkov
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
