On 15/12/14 03:32, Nick Withers wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 08:25 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>Hello Nick,
>
>this looks good, except that
>
>On 10/12/14 06:05, Nick Withers wrote:
> >+ for (pos = response; response + sizeof (response) - pos && (size =
read(ctx->socket, pos, response + si
On 15/12/14 00:45, Nick Withers wrote:
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 08:02 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>On 12/12/14 03:18, Nick Withers wrote:
> >On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 08:42 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >>On 10/12/14 02:53, Nick Withers wrote:
> >>>On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 08:09 +0100, Sebastian H
On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 08:25 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Nick,
>
> this looks good, except that
>
> On 10/12/14 06:05, Nick Withers wrote:
> > + for (pos = response; response + sizeof (response) - pos && (size =
> > read(ctx->socket, pos, response + sizeof (response) - pos)) > 0; pos +
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 08:02 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 12/12/14 03:18, Nick Withers wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 08:42 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >> On 10/12/14 02:53, Nick Withers wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 08:09 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Nick,
>
> >>
On 13/12/2014 2:13 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On December 12, 2014 9:12:53 AM CST, Anthony Green wrote:
Joel Sherrill writes:
Hi
Do we need a newer binutils?
Yes.. we're still waiting for binutils 2.25. It branched last month,
but I don't know when it will be ready. Do you have a mechan
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
>
>
> On December 13, 2014 9:47:00 PM CST, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>I'd like to see RTEMS compile with LLVM / clang. This would go a long
>>way toward improving our static analysis capabilities. The project
>>should get RTEMS compiling, and add
On December 13, 2014 9:47:00 PM CST, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>I'd like to see RTEMS compile with LLVM / clang. This would go a long
>way toward improving our static analysis capabilities. The project
>should get RTEMS compiling, and add support in RSB for it.
>
I added basic RTEMS target support t