On 18/09/14 23:47, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
Is it possible to move all platforms to GCC 4.9.x?
If not, which ones have issues and do these issues
have GCC PRs filed?
Thanks.
The PowerPC build issues have been fixed. Also the C++ problem with GCC 4.9
for SMP configurations is fixed.
--
Se
Hi, I was fiddling with this platform and got as far as a project
implementing a USB device. If you are interested I could send you the code.
It hasn't been touched for a while, it may or may not have bit rot.
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
On 18 September 2014 12:12
On 19/09/2014 6:55 am, Pavel Pisa wrote:
We need proper automated test suite setup - probably in Python
and for sure with OpenOCD.
Like this:
http://www.rtems.org/ftp/pub/rtems/people/chrisj/rtems-tester/rtems-tester.html
?
Anyway, for real grade target
project, they (in house), you, OAR,
On 18/09/2014 11:05 pm, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/17/2014 02:26 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
The JFFS2 file system can optionally use zlib as a compressor and
if this is the only reference to zlib the application will not link.
Moving libz.a into librtemscpu.a is not a wise idea.
Why ? RTEMS is o
On 9/18/2014 6:51 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-17 10:52:34 -0500, Joel Sherrill
> wrote:
>> On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 09/17/2014 04:45 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Wed, 2014-09-17 15:37:32 +0200, Sebastian
Huber wrote:
>> contrib/Ch
Hi
Is it possible to move all platforms to GCC 4.9.x?
If not, which ones have issues and do these issues
have GCC PRs filed?
Thanks.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free
Hello Daniel,
On Thursday 18 of September 2014 18:08:04 Daniel Gutson wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> could you please give us an update of the shape of this BSP?
>
> There's a project that uses the TMS570, and I'd like to convince some
> people to move to RTEMS. How far do you consider the BSP is from
Hi,
The semaphore functions were producing _unalign exception before (printf
issue).
I added #define STACK_CHECKER_ON to ticker and here is what I got:
*** BEGIN OF TEST CLOCK TICK ***
BLOWN STACK!!!
task control block: 0x00041488
task ID: 0x0A010001
task name: 0x
task name string:
task
Hello
I am interested in development of the stm32f4 bsp.
We have small project based on the STM32F429 MCPU which we would like to
run RTEMS on.
>From the current code one could say there is not much. Only UART in
polling, started I2C, some defines and few registers descriptions,
interrupts just t
On 9/17/2014 6:23 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 18/09/2014 4:01 am, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>> are there any dynamic checking tools (a la
>> valgrind/helgrind/memcheck/drd and *sanitizer) for RTEMS?
>> More specifically, I'm interested in memory and concurrency checking,
>> more specifically for AR
Thanks. Committed to 4.9 and head.
--joel
On 9/18/2014 1:28 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/18/14 09:31, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> OK to commit?
>>
>> 2014-09-18 Joel Sherrill
>>
>> * config-list.mk (LIST): Add v850-rtems.
> Yes.
>
> jeff
>
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Re
Hi
I was provided a list of warning options for GCC to consider
for future inclusion. I have a local build with all of them added
and was looking to see if the warnings were appropriate and
valid for us. I would like to get community thoughts on
-Winit-self based on the case it flagged in JFFS2.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Mohammed Saeed Khoory
wrote:
> I'm not sure about tools similar to valgrind, but you might find it useful to
> enable deep memory tests in RTEMS. You can find more information here.
> http://www.rtems.org/wiki/index.php/Debugging#Optional_Compile-time_Selections
Ok I'll do it.. Thanks!
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
>
> On 9/18/2014 10:40 AM, Marcos Díaz wrote:
>> What I printed is the internal representation of those types (at AST
>> of gcc), as I could see the types for each architecture are defined
>> with the macro WCHAR_TYPE
Hi folks,
could you please give us an update of the shape of this BSP?
There's a project that uses the TMS570, and I'd like to convince some
people to move to RTEMS. How far do you consider the BSP is from the
"industrial" status?
I don't see much progress details in its wiki, such as stabili
OK to commit?
2014-09-18 Joel Sherrill
* config-list.mk (LIST): Add v850-rtems.
Index: contrib/config-list.mk
===
--- contrib/config-list.mk (revision 215357)
+++ contrib/config-list.mk (working copy)
@@ -68,7 +6
On 9/18/2014 6:51 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-17 10:52:34 -0500, Joel Sherrill
> wrote:
>> On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 09/17/2014 04:45 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Wed, 2014-09-17 15:37:32 +0200, Sebastian
Huber wrote:
>> contrib/Ch
I committed this to 4.9 and head.
Sebastian.. please double check that it is OK please.
I had some issues with applying it to the head and
manually did it.
--joel
On 9/17/2014 8:37 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> contrib/ChangeLog
> 2014-09-17 Sebastian Huber
>
> * config-list.mk (LIST): Ad
On 9/18/2014 10:00 AM, Marcos Díaz wrote:
> The output of the two types (debugging gcc at the comparison of types):
> For ARM (doesn't throw the warning):
>
> (gdb) p debug_tree(wanted_type)
>
> (gdb) p debug_tree(cur_type)
>
> For sparc: (throws the warning)
> p debug_tree(wanted_type)
>
>
The output of the two types (debugging gcc at the comparison of types):
For ARM (doesn't throw the warning):
(gdb) p debug_tree(wanted_type)
wrote:
> Hi, I've been looking this, and I saw the following:
> This warning arise because the %lc format option is for wint_t type,
> and we are passing a
Hi, I've been looking this, and I saw the following:
This warning arise because the %lc format option is for wint_t type,
and we are passing a wchar_t type.
At the architectures that doesn't give the warning, those two types
are the same (wint_t and wchar_t), and those who give the warning have
the
On 18/09/14 15:34, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/18/2014 03:22 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
RTEMS core libraries depend on libz and libm. This patch should be
applied to all open GCC branches.
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-09-18 Sebastian Huber
* config/rtems.h (LIB_SPECS): Add -lz and -lm to qrt
On 09/18/2014 03:22 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
RTEMS core libraries depend on libz and libm. This patch should be
applied to all open GCC branches.
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-09-18 Sebastian Huber
* config/rtems.h (LIB_SPECS): Add -lz and -lm to qrtems.
What the heck are you guys doing?
RTEMS core libraries depend on libz and libm. This patch should be
applied to all open GCC branches.
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-09-18 Sebastian Huber
* config/rtems.h (LIB_SPECS): Add -lz and -lm to qrtems.
---
gcc/config/rtems.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --
We have now a similar problem with the new PING command:
powerpc-rtems4.11-gcc --pipe -B /opt/rtems-4.11/powerpc-rtems4.11/br_uid/lib
-specs bsp_specs -qrtems -mcpu=603e -meabi -msdata=sysv -fno-common
-mstrict-align -O2 -g -fno-keep-inline-functions -Wl,-Map,b-br_uid/app.map
b-br_uid/init.o
On 09/17/2014 02:26 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
The JFFS2 file system can optionally use zlib as a compressor and
if this is the only reference to zlib the application will not link.
Moving libz.a into librtemscpu.a is not a wise idea.
Adding -lz does not work because librtemscpu.a is added to the
On 18/09/14 14:37, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On September 18, 2014 4:19:17 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
On 16/09/14 23:00, Joel Sherrill wrote:
.../libcsupport/include/rtems}/tod.h |3 +--
I don't think this is the right location for this header file. The API
declared i
On September 18, 2014 4:19:17 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>On 16/09/14 23:00, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> .../libcsupport/include/rtems}/tod.h |3 +--
>
>I don't think this is the right location for this header file. The API
>
>declared in this header file is highly questiona
On 16/09/14 23:00, Joel Sherrill wrote:
.../libcsupport/include/rtems}/tod.h |3 +--
I don't think this is the right location for this header file. The API
declared in this header file is highly questionable since it circumvents the
device file layer. This change breaks a
29 matches
Mail list logo
