Hello Chris,
thanks for clarification and test.
On Friday 20 of November 2015 00:51:44 Chris Johns wrote:
> On 20/11/2015 2:56 AM, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> > Hello Chris,
> >
> > Please, describe what do you prefer and if something should
> > be done for 4.11 or only master should be considered.
>
> I
On 20/11/2015 2:56 AM, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> Hello Chris,
>
> On Wednesday 18 of November 2015 23:15:12 Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 19/11/2015 8:39 AM, Pavel Pisa wrote:
>>> The patch is important for unpacking standard tar command generated
>>> archives used for example by some of Microwindows tests.
Hello Chris,
On Wednesday 18 of November 2015 23:15:12 Chris Johns wrote:
> On 19/11/2015 8:39 AM, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> > The patch is important for unpacking standard tar command generated
> > archives used for example by some of Microwindows tests.
>
> I do not think the patch is enough. For exam
Hello,
I am Sama Mumbod, a student at CCAST Bambili, Cameroon and I'm interested
in participating in the Google Code In with RTEMS in 2015. This is my first
opportunity to contribute to the open source community and will appreciate
any assistance that will enable me have an awesome GCI experience
Hello Aurelio,
you don't need such a patch. We already have a more flexible system to deal
with such problems. It is also supported on Linux for example. You can use the
constructor attribute with a priority, e.g.
void __attribute__((constructor(1000))) f(void)
{
...
}
Such constructors are
