Re: [GSOC] Weekly report

Oh okay, will keep that in mind from the next time! On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote: > Minor nit: please put a short description of your project in the title > (e.g., "tracing") just to avoid overly plain and possibly confusing > titles if multiple students start to do this.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sparc64 niagara, usiii: Remove -D options from cfg file and move to bspopts.h

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote: > I have no problem with it, but it must be tested :) Just a > compile-only check is fine. > Awesome! I will test the patch. I did this on a machine without sparc64 tools just to see if I could find an answer. --joel > > On Mon, May 14, 201

RE: Move to bsps finished?

> -Original Message- > From: Amaan Cheval [mailto:amaan.che...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 2:46 PM > To: Sommer, Jan > Cc: RTEMS > Subject: Re: Move to bsps finished? > > Hey Jan! > > The ticket tracking the BSP reorganization seems to have been closed > once the docs were

Re: [GSOC] Weekly report

Minor nit: please put a short description of your project in the title (e.g., "tracing") just to avoid overly plain and possibly confusing titles if multiple students start to do this. Thanks for the update! On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:12 PM, Vidushi Vashishth wrote: > Hi! > > As asked by my mentor

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sparc64 niagara, usiii: Remove -D options from cfg file and move to bspopts.h

I have no problem with it, but it must be tested :) Just a compile-only check is fine. On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > I haven't tested this but what do you think of this? > > > -RTEMS_BSPOPTS_SET([US3],[usiii],[1]) > -RTEMS_BSPOPTS_SET([US3],[*],[]) > -RTEMS_BSPOPTS_HELP(

Re: Move to bsps finished?

Hello Jan, the source and header file moves in the BSP area are done. We may still move some selected files around. The build files still have to move, but this is a matter of months. - Am 15. Mai 2018 um 14:45 schrieb Amaan Cheval amaan.che...@gmail.com: > Hey Jan! > > The ticket trackin

Re: Move to bsps finished?

Hey Jan! The ticket tracking the BSP reorganization seems to have been closed once the docs were updated, so I'm leaning towards a yes for them being more or less finished (except for perhaps minor changes in case something was missed, I imagine). Ticket: https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3285 If y

Move to bsps finished?

Hello, I just wanted to ask if the reorganization of the BSP source code is more or less finished? Then this might be a good point for us to pull the changes into our local copies to be close to the development branch again otherwise it might be easier to wait a bit longer. Best regards, J

[PATCH 0/1] posixtimer01 test questions and patch

When running the testsuites/psxtests/psxtimer01/ tests on our or1k board, I've noticed a common 10ms (one clock tick) time difference when measuring the re-armed time value in task A and C, which causes the posixtimer01 test to report failure: (...) if (sigwait(&set,&received_sig) == -1) { perro

[PATCH 1/1] Fix and extend error message in posix timer test

_Timespec_Equal_to() does not set errno, hence avoid using perror(), instead use fprintf() to stderr, and extend the error message to provide information about what the error is (measured timer value after re-arming is not equal to the configured interval), and how large of a difference was measure

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Sebastian Huber >> wrote: >> > On 14/05/18 15:20, Amaan Cheval wrote: >> >> >> >> For now, do we all agree to x86_64 as the arch, and x86_64_ge