On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 08:45, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > > OK. That works and is now pushed. > > > > Nice. > > > I am just glad I didn't get a complete failing grade on my first Python > patch. :) > > 100% pass, however I should not be grading anyone on Python. > > > > > Any comments on the patches to the autotools infrastructure? Nibbling on > bsp_specs > > > > They look good. > > One thing I was wondering about is detecting gcc as a compiler and then > optionally adding bsp_specs to the CC command line? If we detect gcc or > clang we > can control the option mix. I suspect this would need a gcc-clang.m4 for > each > layer's aclocal directory. > > This could work but ... Give me some time to pick at the bsp_specs. I have started a sweep to reduce differences. There were spurious differences like spacing and some typos. There are other issues to discuss that I want to discuss on the list. For example, "-e entry" and "-u undefined" are used in many bsp_specs. If we made a sweep to move them all to the linkcmds, then that would be a good thing IMO. On the PowerPC, we have rtems_crt[in].o and I don't know why we don't have crt[in].o from gcc to use. That seems like something isn't right. A number of relatively straightforward issues like that rapidly reduce what happens in the bsp_specs which makes it even easier to eliminate them. --joel > Chris >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
