Hello,
This issue was resolved earlier with the following patch
https://git.rtems.org/rtems/commit/c/src/lib/libbsp/Makefile.am?id=a57b72ded94b4e77fd4f9bd3cc37380a02e3e35a
where the inclusion of the GPIO API header file was removed from the
libbsp/shared makefile and moved (in the case of the
On 06/11/15 16:28, Gedare Bloom wrote:
I think Chris may want to change the way RSB deals with versions, so
hold off on committing until he can comment. I assume this is just cp
from 4.11 to 4.12 plus search-replace?
Yes, more or less.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dorn
On 06/11/15 15:12, Chris Johns wrote:
On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development
>cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation
>this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google Code-In,
>and bumpi
I think Chris may want to change the way RSB deals with versions, so
hold off on committing until he can comment. I assume this is just cp
from 4.11 to 4.12 plus search-replace?
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> ---
> rtems/config/4.12/rtems-all.bset | 1
---
rtems/config/4.12/rtems-all.bset | 17
rtems/config/4.12/rtems-arm.bset | 4 ++
rtems/config/4.12/rtems-autotools-base.bset| 23 +++
rtems/config/4.12/rtems-autotools-internal.bset| 13 ++
rtems/config/4.12/rtems-autotools.b
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development
>> cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation
>> this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google
On 5/11/2015 7:30 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> Are manuals on docs.rtems.org automatically regenerated or need to be
> hand-built?
I do not think so. I will discuss this with Amar today.
Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/m
On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development
> cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation
> this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google Code-In,
> and bumping the tool versions could be a set o
