Sounds good to me. On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 6:47 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 2:12 AM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> After Joel pointed out in an offlist discussion, >> I made a new patch for ndbm port. >> . >> To send the changes to Newlib, i had to place `ndbm.h` , `ndbm.c` in >> their respective places and make changes in Makefile.am. >> Before, I applied same patch to RSB hence ndbm library was not generated. >> . >> > In my local build yesterday, I saw the symbols in the installed libc.a. I > have not run the tests. > > >> . >> This time I also added files generated by `autoreconf -fvi` in the patch. >> . >> This patch is 10MB in size hence cannot be send in raw format on mailing >> list. >> > > The person committing is supposed to do the autoreconf and commit that. > > No one has answered if it is OK to commit. That was the last message in > the thread. > I will ping on that thread again for confirmation. > > >> . >> This patch worked with RSB and ndbm library (lib_a-ndbm.o) was generated >> successfully in RTEMS Toolchain. >> > > I'm hoping we can avoid this by pushing the patch to newlib, then bumping > the hash for > newlib in the RSB, then adding your ndbm test patch to RTEMS. > Yeah, meanwhile testsuite can be verified. . Also, please look at the sources I send on devel for fenv. Should I ignore architectures which are not having FreeBSD source? or Should i pick from NetBSD and FreeBSD both? > > --joel > > >> >> >> Thank you >> Vaibhav Gupta >> >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
