On 17/05/2017 00:03, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
On 16/05/17 15:45, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>>> wrote:
FYI
I guess for RTEMS we should use "powerpcspe-rtems*-*". Is it
possible to use the RTEMS "powerpc" directories with such a
target? We had an "arm-rtemseabi*" maybe due to some
configure/automake limitations. So, maybe "powerpc-rtemsspe*"?
I personally think the GCC discussions which put SPE as part of
the OS name are
horribly incorrect. SPE is an architecture variant and the
pattern for configure
triples is very well defined. The pattern is
ARCHITECTURE-VENDOR-OS[version]
I would prefer powerpcspe-rtemsVERSION.
On the sharing the code issue, how much gets shared? How do you
envision
this impacting the RTEMS tree? Split the PowerPC port like GCC?
Or just
somehow magically build the same powerpc directories two
different ways?
The reason for this split in GCC is that IBM is no longer willing to
maintain the stuff from Freescale/NXP/Qualcomm. There is no reason
to do this split in RTEMS.
I didn't either except for the purity of matching directories to tool
architectures.
So it will be configure magic to subset the BSPs I suppose.
Does this mean we configure RTEMS with:
configure --target=powerpcspe-rtems4.12
?
It would seem to create a new architecture and I suspect this will have
a follow on effects with rtems_waf and the rtems-tools.
Chris
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
