On 09/04/2020 07:52, gabriel.moy...@dlr.de wrote:
I am wondering why this patch was not accepted. Is there anything bad or
missing? (I was following
thishttps://www.mail-archive.com/devel@rtems.org/msg23478.html)
Sorry, I just forgot to have a look at this patch. I checked in the patch.
_
Hi everyone,
I am wondering why this patch was not accepted. Is there anything bad or
missing? (I was following this
https://www.mail-archive.com/devel@rtems.org/msg23478.html)
-Original Message-
From: Moyano Heredia, Victor Gabriel
Sent: Freitag, 3. April 2020 09:35
To: devel@rtems.or
On 09/04/2020 03:32, Chris Johns wrote:
On 2020-04-09 03:43, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 08/04/2020 19:34, Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote:
Instead of treating weak references as a single level of
indirection, I think you have to treat them as a single overridable
interface. In a dynamically-linked
Only include the deferred free support if free() is actually used by the
application.
---
cpukit/libcsupport/src/free.c| 43
cpukit/libcsupport/src/malloc_deferred.c | 40 +++--
cpukit/libcsupport/src/malloc_p.h| 2 --
c
This patch set is not intended for RTEMS 5. I just gives an example how
weak functions can be used in RTMES to reduce the code size for some
applications automatically (through work done by the linker).
Sebastian Huber (2):
score: Add RTEMS_WEAK
malloc: Make deferred free support optional
cp
---
cpukit/include/rtems/score/basedefs.h | 12
testsuites/sptests/Makefile.am | 2 +-
testsuites/sptests/spmisc01/init.c | 9 ++
testsuites/sptests/spmisc01/spmisc01.h | 51 ++
testsuites/sptests/spmisc01/strong.c | 42
On 2020-04-09 01:48, Alan Cudmore wrote:
I definitely plan on creating a readme for the repository to help
anyone that is interested.
Thanks.
Regarding the LEON3: I am noticing something with the release that I
don't understand yet.
I am able to build and run a number of ARM BSPs including r
On 2020-04-09 03:43, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 08/04/2020 19:34, Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote:
Instead of treating weak references as a single level of indirection,
I think you have to treat them as a single overridable interface. In
a dynamically-linked application, we might try to perform an ov
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:42 PM Chris Johns wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-09 05:35, jan.som...@dlr.de wrote:
> > Could you give me some direction where we would add the documentation
> > and what is missing?
> >
> > The pc-run.ini is basically a copy of the xilinx_zynq_zedboard.ini with
> > just a differen
On 2020-04-09 05:35, jan.som...@dlr.de wrote:
Could you give me some direction where we would add the documentation
and what is missing?
The pc-run.ini is basically a copy of the xilinx_zynq_zedboard.ini with
just a different tester.
What you have done is create a new form of running a test
This looks fine also.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:23 AM Jan Sommer wrote:
>
> ---
> tester/rtems/testing/bsps/pc-run.ini | 41
>
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tester/rtems/testing/bsps/pc-run.ini
>
> diff --git a/tester/rtems/testing/
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 1:35 PM wrote:
>
> Could you give me some direction where we would add the documentation and
> what is missing?
>
> The pc-run.ini is basically a copy of the xilinx_zynq_zedboard.ini with just
> a different tester.
>
> Or do you mean the change in the run.cfg?
>
Sorry this
Could you give me some direction where we would add the documentation and what
is missing?
The pc-run.ini is basically a copy of the xilinx_zynq_zedboard.ini with just a
different tester.
Or do you mean the change in the run.cfg?
Von: Gedare Bloom [mailto:ged...@rtems.org]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8.
Dear Sebastian Sir,
This works. Thanks for the help.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:34 PM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 08/04/2020 20:02, Richi Dubey wrote:
>
> >
> > I have uploaded the screenshot of executing smpschededf.exe on sis
> > with -m 2 option(To run the
On 08/04/2020 20:02, Richi Dubey wrote:
I have uploaded the screenshot of executing smpschededf.exe on sis
with -m 2 option(To run the exe with 2 cores) and -leon3 option. Now
how do I verify it was actually run on 2 cores?
Also, on checking init.c for smpschededf01, line 134 says:
#define
Hello Gedare,
I copied that file from rv64imafd which has that copyright header
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 18:04, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> This looks alright. I doubt EB has a copyright in this, though.
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 4:04 AM Hesham Almatary
> wrote:
>>
>> ---
>> .../rtems/testing/bsps/rv
Thanks they should be ok after the release. Hard to tell what might break
in subtle ways from asm changes
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:35 AM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> The following patch set fixes some compile time problems with GCC 10 on
> powerpc.
> I am not sure
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:17 PM Gedare Bloom wrote:
> You should write the test according to the API specification. The test is
> expected to fail until the function is implemented (correctly).
>
Ok
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:22 AM Eshan Dhawan
> wrote:
>
>> hello,
>> how do I add a test for a
You should write the test according to the API specification. The test is
expected to fail until the function is implemented (correctly).
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:22 AM Eshan Dhawan wrote:
> hello,
> how do I add a test for a function that returns -1(ENOSYS), Since isn't
> implemented yet?
> Thou
Hello,
in order to test a patch for the removal of the bsp_specs I built all
BSPs (POSIX and tests enabled) with GCC 10 using the new build system.
http://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3937
The situation with epiphany turned out to be quite bad:
http://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3941
There is an issue
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:17 AM Richi Dubey wrote:
> Dear Dr. Bloom,
>
> I understand. I would be more specific from next time.
>
> When I ran sis with no multi-core option, the result came out same as when
> I ran it with -m 2 option, (To simulate the executable with 2 cores). And
> on reading sis
On 08/04/2020 19:34, Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote:
If you encounter problems like this, then
weak functions are used for the wrong thing.
Exhibit A: zynq_setup_mmu_and_cache. It is referred to only by the
BSP's startup sequence. So it is a reference from librtemsbsp to
librtemsbsp by
---
bsps/powerpc/qoriq/start/mmu.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/bsps/powerpc/qoriq/start/mmu.c b/bsps/powerpc/qoriq/start/mmu.c
index 87ffc11cc2..b912613cc4 100644
--- a/bsps/powerpc/qoriq/start/mmu.c
+++ b/bsps/powerpc/qoriq/start/mmu.c
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ v
GCC 10 no longer passes -many to the assembler. This enables more
checks in the assembler.
---
bsps/powerpc/include/libcpu/powerpc-utility.h | 73 ++
bsps/powerpc/qoriq/start/bspstart.c| 5 +-
bsps/powerpc/qoriq/start/mmu.c | 7 ++-
.
GCC 10 no longer passes -many to the assembler. This enables more
checks in the assembler.
The 0 in the tlbie instruction is the L operand which selects a 4KiB
page size.
---
bsps/powerpc/gen5200/start/start.S | 2 +-
bsps/powerpc/gen83xx/start/cpuinit.c| 2 +-
bsps/po
The following patch set fixes some compile time problems with GCC 10 on powerpc.
I am not sure if every change is correct, especially I am not sure about the
tlbie change since I had problems to figure out what is going on. This is
probably something for RTEMS 6.
Sebastian Huber (3):
bsp/qoriq:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:30 AM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 08/04/2020 17:57, Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote:
>
> > There are a couple more disadvantages.
> >
> > Which definition is pulled into the final link depends on the order
> > that the object files are list
hello,
how do I add a test for a function that returns -1(ENOSYS), Since isn't
implemented yet?
Though of adding test for clock_getcpuclockid in the same file of
psxgetcpuclockid01.
I wrote the test but it will always return -1.
should I change the rtems_test_asset( r==0 ) to r==-1 and add a print
Dear Dr. Bloom,
I understand. I would be more specific from next time.
When I ran sis with no multi-core option, the result came out same as when
I ran it with -m 2 option, (To simulate the executable with 2 cores). And
on reading sis manual, I understood it didn't support erc32
multiprocessing,
These look alright to me, although I wonder if we need some bsp doc for
this setup?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 9:23 AM Jan Sommer wrote:
> Here are the changes I did for our local setup.
> The first patch enableds telnet tty devices for run.cfg setups
> The second add a run configuration for the pc BS
This looks alright. I doubt EB has a copyright in this, though.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 4:04 AM Hesham Almatary
wrote:
> ---
> .../rtems/testing/bsps/rv64imafdc_medany.ini | 36 +++
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tester/rtems/testing/bsps/rv64imafdc_medan
Push both of these and if needed change spike to this as indicated in other
thread.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 4:00 AM Hesham Almatary
wrote:
> ---
> bare/config/devel/dtc.bset | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/bare/config/devel/dtc.bset b/bare/config/devel/dtc.
Is the dtc version in spike hardcoded? If so would you update it to use the
dtc redirect instead?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 4:18 AM Hesham Almatary
wrote:
> Joel and Christian,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> Spike bset was already using dtc-1.4.1. I submitted patches to bump
> dtc.bset itself. Are t
From: Cláudio Maia
This patch proposes several fixes in the rsb/configuration.rst file.
The document was reviewed from top to bottom with the following
modifications being proposed:
- moved the paragraph describing the %source directive closer to where
the directive is introduced in the text,
From: Cláudio Maia
---
user/rsb/configuration.rst | 424 +++--
1 file changed, 215 insertions(+), 209 deletions(-)
diff --git a/user/rsb/configuration.rst b/user/rsb/configuration.rst
index 4b21dee..561ae60 100644
--- a/user/rsb/configuration.rst
+++ b/user/rsb/c
On 08/04/2020 17:57, Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote:
There are a couple more disadvantages.
Which definition is pulled into the final link depends on the order
that the object files are listed on the command-line. If the weak one
is seen first, then the linker will resolve the symbol against the
There are a couple more disadvantages.
Which definition is pulled into the final link depends on the order that
the object files are listed on the command-line. If the weak one is seen
first, then the linker will resolve the symbol against the weak definition
and it won't even search into subsequ
Hi Chris,
I definitely plan on creating a readme for the repository to help
anyone that is interested.
Regarding the LEON3: I am noticing something with the release that I
don't understand yet.
I am able to build and run a number of ARM BSPs including raspberrypi,
raspberrypi2, beagleboneblack, a
Hello,
another use case for a weak function could be the heap. If you only
allocate memory and never free it, then the implementation can be very
simple:
https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/cpukit/score/src/memoryallocate.c#n49
We could use something like this in heapallocate.c:
RTEMS_WEAK voi
- Only set console_stdio as default if no bsp_tty_dev has been defined
---
tester/rtems/testing/run.cfg | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tester/rtems/testing/run.cfg b/tester/rtems/testing/run.cfg
index f7b21d7..e472ba8 100644
--- a/tester/rtems/testing/run.cf
---
tester/rtems/testing/bsps/pc-run.ini | 41
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tester/rtems/testing/bsps/pc-run.ini
diff --git a/tester/rtems/testing/bsps/pc-run.ini
b/tester/rtems/testing/bsps/pc-run.ini
new file mode 100644
index 00
Here are the changes I did for our local setup.
The first patch enableds telnet tty devices for run.cfg setups
The second add a run configuration for the pc BSP
Jan Sommer (2):
tester: Allow telnet tty devices for run.cfg
tester: Add configuration pc-run.ini
tester/rtems/testing/bsps/pc-run.
On 08/04/2020 14:06, Andrew Butterfield wrote:
from my perspective as part of the qualification effort I suspect
that weak functions are easier to reason about and verify than global
pointers? Is my suspicion reasonable - I am more familiar with
pointers (global or otherwise) than I am with h
Hello,
if someone cares about i386 support, please have a look at this:
https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3943
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Joel and Christian,
Thanks for your review.
Spike bset was already using dtc-1.4.1. I submitted patches to bump
dtc.bset itself. Are there any other patches I should apply?
Cheers,
Hesham
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 10:18, Christian Mauderer wrote:
>
> Hello Hesham and Joel,
>
> On 07/04/2020 16:01,
---
.../rtems/testing/bsps/rv64imafdc_medany.ini | 36 +++
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tester/rtems/testing/bsps/rv64imafdc_medany.ini
diff --git a/tester/rtems/testing/bsps/rv64imafdc_medany.ini
b/tester/rtems/testing/bsps/rv64imafdc_medany.ini
new file
* There is no all$ target in Spike
* There is no longer --with-fesvr flag since fesvr is source-inlined
by default
---
source-builder/config/spike-1-1.cfg | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/source-builder/config/spike-1-1.cfg
b/source-builder/config/spike-1-1
---
bare/config/devel/dtc.bset | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/bare/config/devel/dtc.bset b/bare/config/devel/dtc.bset
index d701f93..54521f6 100644
--- a/bare/config/devel/dtc.bset
+++ b/bare/config/devel/dtc.bset
@@ -4,4 +4,4 @@
%define release 1
-devel/d
---
bsps/riscv/griscv/irq/irq.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bsps/riscv/griscv/irq/irq.c b/bsps/riscv/griscv/irq/irq.c
index e3fc8c310f..e68e69e393 100644
--- a/bsps/riscv/griscv/irq/irq.c
+++ b/bsps/riscv/griscv/irq/irq.c
@@ -43,8 +43,6 @@
#include
#include
-rtems_in
Hello Hesham and Joel,
On 07/04/2020 16:01, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Please apply your Christian's and your patch.
I haven't created a patch for 1.4 yet. But it's quite straightforward.
So maybe just create one instead of applying mine.
Best regards
Christian
>
> Also bump the dtc base package
On 08/04/2020 10:16, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello,
weak functions are already used in several places in RTEMS, but not in
RTEMS core components. In we have currently
only a RTEMS_WEAK_ALIAS() macro:
testsuites/sptests/spmisc01/init.c:int weak_alias_func(void)
RTEMS_WEAK_ALIAS(noinline_fun
Hello,
weak functions are already used in several places in RTEMS, but not in
RTEMS core components. In we have currently
only a RTEMS_WEAK_ALIAS() macro:
testsuites/sptests/spmisc01/init.c:int weak_alias_func(void)
RTEMS_WEAK_ALIAS(noinline_func);
cpukit/libfs/src/defaults/default_mmap.c:)
52 matches
Mail list logo
