Am 27.03.2018 um 09:56 schrieb Christian Mauderer: > Am 27.03.2018 um 09:00 schrieb Christian Mauderer: >> Am 26.03.2018 um 14:59 schrieb Christian Mauderer: >>> Hello Chris, >>> >>> I took the liberty to rebase the patches to the latest master. See the >>> two following v3 mails. I'll take a look at the configuration based on >>> these patches. >>> >>> I think that you wanted to make i386 tests. After that it might would be >>> a good idea to commit them. What do you think? >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Christian >>> >> >> Hello Chris, >> >> just noted: The freebsd-to-rtems.py (with -R) doesn't work anymore. I'll >> fix that. >> >> Maybe it would be a good idea to develop that (and the config options) >> on a branch (on a user specific repo on git.rtems.org) and post it for >> review? At least it's a bigger change. >> >> Best regards >> >> Christian >> > > Most likely there will be some more changes till the configuration is > implemented. So I created a branch called ticket-3351 for review here: > https://git.rtems.org/christianm/rtems-libbsd.git/log/?h=ticket-3351 > > I added a fix for the freebsd-to-rtems.py to that branch. >
Hello Chris, may I ask you about some points: 1. I've put some thoughts into the configuration file format. My first idea to use ini files for it had a big disadvantage: It's hard to include one ini file into another. So I have tried to use a python script as a configuration file instead. What do you think of that approach? My current implementation is mainly in this commit on the ticket-branch: https://git.rtems.org/christianm/rtems-libbsd.git/commit/?h=ticket-3351&id=0504219600d6a6cac8775a8e95ebe56f473a9991 Note that also the config can be read, this branch currently doesn't build (see 2.). 2. I'm struggling to build two versions of libbsd in one waf call. Currently the two configurations have increased the number of files that have to be build by the factor two. Beneath the point that waf has problems building the same file twice, I'm not really happy with that because it increases the build time a lot. I would prefer some solution that only builds files twice that have different options. Would you agree with that or would you go for building each file for each config? 3. That depends a little on the answer to two: 3a) If I build everything for every config, I could try to put the objects for every config into its own subdirectory. That seems to be possible somehow: We already have for example a "build/arm-rtems5-atsamv" directory. If I find out how that is created, I can just add a build variant suffix. Do you happen to know where that directory comes from? It seems that the name is created in the rtems_waf/rtems.py. But I'm not totally sure: https://git.rtems.org/chrisj/rtems_waf.git/tree/rtems.py#n124 3b) If I try to build only variants of files I somehow have to add a suffix (or prefix) to the generated object files. I haven't found out yet how I could do that. Do you know (without searching too much) whether waf has such an option? If you don't know it, I'll dig deeper into waf myself. Best regards Christian -- -------------------------------------------- embedded brains GmbH Herr Christian Mauderer Dornierstr. 4 D-82178 Puchheim Germany email: christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18 Fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08 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
