Re: Time to bump gcc on master?

For the libbsd update we need the November Newlib snapshot (or the release). I have also a libgomp (OpenMP) performance improvement in the queue, for this I need a future GCC snapshot. On 10/11/16 00:44, Joel Sherrill wrote: Hi As we approach a 4.12 branching point, we need to pick a better g

Removing doc from rtems.git and rtems-source-builder.git.

Hi, I will remove the doc directories from rtems.git and rtems-source-builder.git repos for the 4.11 and master branches. Any reason not to do this? Chris ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Time to bump gcc on master?

Hi As we approach a 4.12 branching point, we need to pick a better gcc version. The current RTEMS default is gcc-6-20160609 I am testing now to bump newlib to newlib-2.4.0.20161025-1. This reports as: sparc-rtems4.12-gcc (GCC) 6.1.1 20160609 (RTEMS 4.12, RSB 6d2eaba6c9bccedc04dfc2802a0d11835a98

RTEMS 4.11.0 RC5 (final) Available

RTEMS 4.11.0 RC5 Release: 4.11.0-rc5 Date : 10 November 2016 URL: https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/releases/4.11/4.11.0-rc5/ This is the final release candidate (RC5) for RTEMS 4.11.0. The documentation output quality has been improved. The PDF output is now at a production quality. We

Re: [PATCH 10/10] rtems: Add scheduler processor add/remove

No complaints from me on this set. On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Update #2797. > --- > cpukit/rtems/Makefile.am | 2 + > cpukit/rtems/include/rtems/rtems/tasks.h | 45 > cpukit/rtems/src/scheduleraddprocessor.c | 12

Re: Prototype warning for clock_nanosleep()

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Nov 9, 2016 2:05 PM, "Gedare Bloom" wrote: >> >> This is/should be based on the definition of _POSIX_CLOCK_SELECTION >> and we get this from newlib/libc/include/sys/features.h as of commit >> 9a80679aae9098aa189f7ea8ce7892e2c092f3be in new

Re: Prototype warning for clock_nanosleep()

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> > On Nov 9, 2016 2:05 PM, "Gedare Bloom" wrote: >> >> >> >> This is/should be based on the definition of _POSIX_CLOCK_SELE

Re: Prototype warning for clock_nanosleep()

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2016 2:05 PM, "Gedare Bloom" wrote: > >> > >> This is/should be based on the definition of _POSIX_CLOCK_SELECTION > >> and we get this from newlib/libc/include/sys/features.h

Re: Prototype warning for clock_nanosleep()

On Nov 9, 2016 2:05 PM, "Gedare Bloom" wrote: > > This is/should be based on the definition of _POSIX_CLOCK_SELECTION > and we get this from newlib/libc/include/sys/features.h as of commit > 9a80679aae9098aa189f7ea8ce7892e2c092f3be in newlib.git. If there is a > warning, then probably rsb is not g

Re: Prototype warning for clock_nanosleep()

This is/should be based on the definition of _POSIX_CLOCK_SELECTION and we get this from newlib/libc/include/sys/features.h as of commit 9a80679aae9098aa189f7ea8ce7892e2c092f3be in newlib.git. If there is a warning, then probably rsb is not getting a new enough newlib for it. On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 a

Prototype warning for clock_nanosleep()

Hi In a build sweep, I noticed that every use of clock_nanosleep() has a warning for it not being defined. I don't seem to be able to find the magic to turn on the prototype in time.h. Does anyone see what needs to be done? == #define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200112L #include void f(voi

[PATCH 1/2] score: Move _CPU_Get_current_per_CPU_control()

Move _CPU_Get_current_per_CPU_control() from to . --- cpukit/score/cpu/no_cpu/rtems/score/cpu.h | 18 -- cpukit/score/cpu/no_cpu/rtems/score/cpuimpl.h | 20 +++- cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/rtems/score/cpu.h | 8 cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/rtems/score/cpu

Re: libbsd update to FreeBSD head (2016-08-23)

On 09/11/16 15:05, Sebastian Huber wrote: Any idea how this impacted performance? I know Chris had mentioned seeing a regression on Zynq. There are so many ways to measure performance and this is a big update with thousands of changes. So, I don't know. Christian wrote a script to semi-au

Re: libbsd update to FreeBSD head (2016-08-23)

On 09/11/16 14:57, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Nov 9, 2016 2:38 AM, "Sebastian Huber" > wrote: > > Hello, > > I update currently the libbsd to FreeBSD head (2016-08-23) from FreeBSD 9.3. This is a very big jump in terms of FreeBSD development. The mai

Re: libbsd update to FreeBSD head (2016-08-23)

On Nov 9, 2016 2:38 AM, "Sebastian Huber" < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > Hello, > > I update currently the libbsd to FreeBSD head (2016-08-23) from FreeBSD 9.3. This is a very big jump in terms of FreeBSD development. The main goal is to catch up with FreeBSD and unify the baselin

libbsd update to FreeBSD head (2016-08-23)

Hello, I update currently the libbsd to FreeBSD head (2016-08-23) from FreeBSD 9.3. This is a very big jump in terms of FreeBSD development. The main goal is to catch up with FreeBSD and unify the baseline of the different parts of the libbsd. The network, USB and SD/MMC card parts used diffe