Gedare,
I am also confused about mentioning your copyright in the "LICENSE.2" file.
the patch for lib/libbsp/sparc64/niagara/startup/bspclean.c is fine, it
tells you are the originator of this file and you apply "License.2" to it.
What exactly does your copyright notice in "License.2" want to sa
Hello,
On 08/12/14 11:40, Hesham Moustafa wrote:
Hi all,
I have been implementing SMP for a new architecture (Epiphany) and I
have some questions.
When the secondary processor should be waiting (or going to idle
state)? At Thread_Start_multitasking?
before you start a secondary processor the
On 08/12/14 21:52, Chris Johns wrote:
On 8/12/2014 5:48 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
This makes the report reproducible.
I think the report should include a date. I do not see any advantage
having reproducible reports. The report captures the specific instance
of the build.
Yes, it captures
I know, and, here's my example of why I think we need the equivalent of "grep
-v" to get rid of dates, machine name, etc, and why I think Chris is right in
this case. Until Sebastian explains otherwise.
At some clients I've been putting the development tool chain into clearcase
"views" so that
On December 8, 2014 6:00:06 PM CST, Peter Dufault wrote:
>I don't understand what drives this, maybe Sebastian can comment.
>
>I agree with Chris that requiring a documented "grep -v" in an expected
>output script would assist in reproducibility and process validation.
>
>I also agree with Sebas
I don't understand what drives this, maybe Sebastian can comment.
I agree with Chris that requiring a documented "grep -v" in an expected output
script would assist in reproducibility and process validation.
I also agree with Sebastian that "cmp" returning that files are identical is
very reass
On 9/12/2014 8:07 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
On 8/12/2014 5:48 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
This makes the report reproducible.
I think the report should include a date. I do not see any advantage having
reproducible reports. The report capture
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 8/12/2014 5:48 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>
>> This makes the report reproducible.
>
>
> I think the report should include a date. I do not see any advantage having
> reproducible reports. The report captures the specific instance of the
> b
On 8/12/2014 5:48 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
This patch set adds an XML report and replaces ifs with inheritance.
Nice set of patches. My only question is about the date patch.
Thanks
Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.or
On 8/12/2014 5:48 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
This makes the report reproducible.
I think the report should include a date. I do not see any advantage
having reproducible reports. The report captures the specific instance
of the build.
The purpose behind the report is to have an output from
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On 12/8/2014 2:15 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Joel Sherrill
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2014 2:00 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
For a bit context, I'm interested in relicensing my contributions to
use the 2-cla
On 12/8/2014 2:15 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Joel Sherrill
> wrote:
>> On 12/8/2014 2:00 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>> For a bit context, I'm interested in relicensing my contributions to
>>> use the 2-clause BSD. This is a first step in that direction. As more
>>> o
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On 12/8/2014 2:00 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> For a bit context, I'm interested in relicensing my contributions to
>> use the 2-clause BSD. This is a first step in that direction. As more
>> of my work is relicensed, I will update the copyrig
On 12/8/2014 2:00 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> For a bit context, I'm interested in relicensing my contributions to
> use the 2-clause BSD. This is a first step in that direction. As more
> of my work is relicensed, I will update the copyright statement in
> LICENSE.2, and if anyone else is intereste
For a bit context, I'm interested in relicensing my contributions to
use the 2-clause BSD. This is a first step in that direction. As more
of my work is relicensed, I will update the copyright statement in
LICENSE.2, and if anyone else is interested in re-licensing their
contributions, they can add
---
LICENSE.2 | 23 ++
.../lib/libbsp/sparc64/niagara/startup/bspclean.c | 5 +
2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 LICENSE.2
diff --git a/LICENSE.2 b/LICENSE.2
new file mode 100644
index 000.
On 12/8/2014 1:12 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 06/12/14 21:56, Hesham Moustafa wrote:
>> Thanks Joel and Gedare. I found it a bit tricky as I had to add
>> epiphany to (hidden) aclocal/enable-smp.m4 files at c/src, cpukit and
>> the root directory.
> Yes, its bad to waste time on such stuff. S
Hi all,
I have been implementing SMP for a new architecture (Epiphany) and I
have some questions.
When the secondary processor should be waiting (or going to idle
state)? At Thread_Start_multitasking?
When a secondary processor is interrupted by another one? When it's
allocated a thread (lazy al
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> On 06/12/14 21:56, Hesham Moustafa wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Joel and Gedare. I found it a bit tricky as I had to add
>> epiphany to (hidden) aclocal/enable-smp.m4 files at c/src, cpukit and
>> the root directory.
>
>
> Yes, its bad to waste time
19 matches
Mail list logo
