Ok, I will do that. On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:56 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:16 PM Ida Delphine <idad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I ran the commands and copied and pasted wherever there were mismatches > especially with respect to the version numbers. > > > OK, I noticed some inconsistencies and was wondering. It would be > better to provide the actual output for the entire snippets, see > further below what I noticed. > > > Should I resend the patchset with a better commit message? > > > Yes. I think it would be better to also update the entire output > examples, and to separate them from the manual changes you make to the > version numbers. In other words, update the version numbers by hand > for some things, and update the console output examples separately. > You can put multiple changes together in one patch that are related, > for example you might just send one patch with all the console output > example updates. > > > On Tue, 16 Mar 2021, 6:50 pm Gedare Bloom, <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Ida, > >> > >> Since the patches now indicate rtems-docs, you don't need to include > >> that in the commit message. Instead, it is recommended to put the > >> manual directory name that is modified as the first part of the > >> commit, e.g., "user: bump version 5 to 6 in start/tools.rst" > >> > >> More below: > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:16 AM Ida Delphine <idad...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Edit edit sample output of tool suite installation. > >> > Edit command to check if C cross compiler works and sample output of > this command. > >> > --- > >> > user/start/tools.rst | 26 +++++++++++++------------- > >> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/user/start/tools.rst b/user/start/tools.rst > >> > index baa2387..9a915ab 100644 > >> > --- a/user/start/tools.rst > >> > +++ b/user/start/tools.rst > >> > @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Install the Tool Suite > >> > > >> > You have chosen an installation prefix, the BSP to build, the tool's > >> > architecure and prepared the source for the RSB in the previous > sections. We > unrelated, fix typo: architecture > > >> > -have chosen :file:`$HOME/quick-start/rtems/5` as the installation > prefix, the > >> > +have chosen :file:`$HOME/quick-start/rtems/6` as the installation > prefix, the > >> > ``erc32`` BSP and the SPARC architecture name of ``sparc-rtems5``, > and unpacked > >> > the RSB source in :file:`$HOME/quick-start/src`. > >> > > >> > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Build and install the tool suite: > >> > .. code-block:: none > >> > > >> > cd $HOME/quick-start/src/rsb/rtems > >> > - ../source-builder/sb-set-builder > --prefix=$HOME/quick-start/rtems/5 5/rtems-sparc > >> > + ../source-builder/sb-set-builder > --prefix=$HOME/quick-start/rtems/6 6/rtems-sparc > >> > > >> > This command should output something like this (omitted lines are > denoted by > >> > ...). The build host appears as part of the name of the package being > >> > @@ -33,19 +33,19 @@ built. The name you see may vary depending on the > host you are using: > >> > > >> > .. code-block:: none > >> > > >> > - RTEMS Source Builder - Set Builder, 5.1.0 > >> > - Build Set: 5/rtems-sparc > >> > + RTEMS Source Builder - Set Builder, 6 > >> > + Build Set: 6/rtems-sparc > >> > ... > >> > config: tools/rtems-binutils-2.34.cfg > >> > - package: sparc-rtems5-binutils-2.34-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1 > >> > - building: sparc-rtems5-binutils-2.34-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1 > >> > - sizes: sparc-rtems5-binutils-2.34-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1: > 305.866MB (installed: 29.966MB) > >> > - cleaning: sparc-rtems5-binutils-2.34-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1 > >> > + package: sparc-rtems6=-binutils-2.34-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1 > > The = sign here is what got me thinking something odd is going on. > Please copy-paste the entire output/snippet you get, and update the > examples completely so that each snippet is self-consistent at least. > > >> > + building: sparc-rtems6-binutils-2.34-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1 > >> > + sizes: sparc-rtems6-binutils-2.34-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1: > 305.866MB (installed: 29.966MB) > >> > + cleaning: sparc-rtems6-binutils-2.34-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1 > >> > reporting: tools/rtems-binutils-2.34.cfg -> > sparc-rtems5-binutils-2.34-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1.txt > >> > reporting: tools/rtems-binutils-2.34.cfg -> > sparc-rtems5-binutils-2.34-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1.xml > >> > config: tools/rtems-gcc-7.5.0-newlib-fbaa096.cfg > >> > - package: > sparc-rtems5-gcc-7.5.0-newlib-fbaa096-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1 > >> > - building: > sparc-rtems5-gcc-7.5.0-newlib-fbaa096-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1 > >> > + package: > sparc-rtems6-gcc-7.5.0-newlib-fbaa096-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1 > >> > + building: > sparc-rtems6-gcc-7.5.0-newlib-fbaa096-x86_64-freebsd12.1-1 > >> > .... > >> > Build Sizes: usage: 5.684GB total: 1.112GB (sources: 143.803MB, > patches: 21.348KB, installed 995.188MB) > >> > Build Set: Time 0:21:35.626294 > >> > >> Did you run the command and capture the sample output, or do you edit > >> the sample output manually? > >> > >> It would be better to copy-paste the actual sample output. Making this > >> version change update automatic could be a nice small scripting > >> exercise. > >> > >> > @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ works with the following command: > >> > > >> > .. code-block:: none > >> > > >> > - $HOME/quick-start/rtems/5/bin/sparc-rtems5-gcc --version > >> > + $HOME/quick-start/rtems/6/bin/sparc-rtems6-gcc --version > >> > > >> > This command should output something like below. The version > informtion helps > >> Unrelated, but can you fix this typo: information > >> > >> > you to identify the exact sources used to build the cross compiler > of your > >> > @@ -69,8 +69,8 @@ source code used. > >> > > >> > .. code-block:: none > >> > > >> > - sparc-rtems5-gcc (GCC) 7.5.0 20191114 (RTEMS 5, RSB 5.1.0, > Newlib fbaa096) > >> > - Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > >> > + sparc-rtems6-gcc (GCC) 10.2.1 20210309 (RTEMS 6, RSB > 5e449fb5c2cb6812a238f9f9764fd339cbbf05c2, Newlib d10d0d9) > >> > + Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > >> > This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. > There is NO > >> > warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A > PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > 2.25.1 > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > devel mailing list > >> > devel@rtems.org > >> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
