Re: [PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

On Fri, 18 May 2018, 11:52 Cillian O'Donnell, wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 May 2018, 21:32 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, > wrote: > >> hello, >> >> I have attached the html report ! >> > > Report looks good! Well done. Was that just for samples. Did the other > sections appear in the report if you click thro

Re: [PATCH] Rework to minimize and eventually eliminate RTEMS use of bsp_specs

I just compiled my local fixed copy (adding rtems.h back in) and there's good news! With the patch, the x86_64 compile stub works with a blank bsp_specs file! On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Amaan Cheval wrote: > Hey! > > Thanks so much for sharing this, it's quite useful to put your earlier >

Re: [PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

On Thu, 17 May 2018, 21:32 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, wrote: > hello, > > I have attached the html report ! > Report looks good! Well done. Was that just for samples. Did the other sections appear in the report if you click through the links? Well it looks good but I hardcoded the paths, at least th

Re: [PATCH] updated chapter references in chapter 2 of c-user doc.

Thanks, I checked in a slightly modified patch. Please keep the format of the original content, e.g. spaces instead of tabs, no white space at the end of the line. This stuff in https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/c-user/overview.html#manual-organization looks hard to maintain. What is the

Re: [PATCH 01/16] beatnik: Move -Dxxx to configure.ac

On 16/05/18 17:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: Updates #3425. --- bsps/powerpc/beatnik/config/beatnik.cfg | 2 +- c/src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/beatnik/configure.ac | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bsps/powerpc/beatnik/config/beatnik.cfg b/bsps/powerpc/beatnik/

Re: Where can I find the existing source code of generating release notes?

Thank you for the information Chris! I have downloaded Trac following your instructions. Currently I am trying to figure out how it works. -Dannie On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Chris Johns wrote: > On 17/5/18 5:28 pm, Danxue Huang wrote: > > > > I am currently working on RTEMS release notes

Re: [PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

On 18/5/18 8:32 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote:> > One thing can be done, which I think will solve parsing of the absolute path > of > the library as well. It is to implement the the logic that Chris used in > covoar.cc , into the python script for coverage . Then we can do an > os.path.abspath()

Re: Where can I find the existing source code of generating release notes?

On 17/5/18 5:28 pm, Danxue Huang wrote: > > I am currently working on RTEMS release notes generator, can you give me some > pointers to the existing source code of generating release notes? I am trying > to > generate the report from Trac like 4.11.3  release notes (​ > https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/

Re: [PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

hello, I have attached the html report ! Well it looks good but I hardcoded the paths, at least that gave the proper idea of what exactly needs to be done. Now I understand why --rtems-builddir stayed there for a long time , it makes the job simple . Here's a point that needs discussion : 1. the

Re: [PATCH] Rework to minimize and eventually eliminate RTEMS use of bsp_specs

Hey! Thanks so much for sharing this, it's quite useful to put your earlier email[1] about minimzing the bsp_specs in context. >From looking ahead a bit without testing (still compiling), the patch may need an ENDFILE_SPEC definition as well for "crtend.o" (it defines __TMC_END__ which crtbegin.o

[PATCH] waf: Fix python3 compatibility.

From: Christian Mauderer --- waf_libbsd.py | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/waf_libbsd.py b/waf_libbsd.py index 0972cf2c..bbc8b42c 100644 --- a/waf_libbsd.py +++ b/waf_libbsd.py @@ -33,6 +33,11 @@ # OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Query regarding disk cache in RTEMS

Hi all, I was looking at the internal working of a benchmark and the way it disables cache for direct IO operations, needed to benchmark storage device drivers. I have a small query regarding how cache is organized in RTEMS: Usually data transfer model is something like: Application address space

LIST OF IO BENCHMARKS

Hi all, As discussed in yesterday's IRC meeting, here is the list of different IO benchmarks(which are supported by FreeBSD) in the decreasing order of their popularity : 1. FIO - License type: GPLv2 - Widely accepted for storage d