Re: RTEMS examples build failed

On 21/04/2020 19:18, Gedare Bloom wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:42 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 7:10 AM Chris Johns wrote: On 21/4/20 7:03 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:33 PM Sebastian Huber mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.d

Re: New build system update

On 21/04/2020 19:15, Gedare Bloom wrote: A Doorstop installation is no longer required. The build specification can be maintained with a text editor. It could be useful to add a "./waf verify-spec" command to verify that the build specification items are sane. I suggest opening a ticket for ve

Re: RTEMS examples build failed

On 22/4/20 3:18 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:42 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 7:10 AM Chris Johns wrote: On 21/4/20 7:03 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:33 PM Sebastian Huber mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.d

Re: Testing Newlib patches

Hi Eshan, Add your code to Newlib-cygwin and build it without any error or warning on perspective Architecture. If build is successful, generate a patch and add that patch to RSB then build RSB again. After building you should be able to see the headers somewhere in include directory. Probably i

Re: Testing Newlib patches

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:48 PM Eshan Dhawan wrote: > > Found it :) > Share it for posterity. > Thanks > > > > On 22-Apr-2020, at 2:43 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > > > I think Aditya wrote something about this before? Maybe Vaibhav? > > > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:27 PM Eshan Dhawan > >> w

Re: Testing Newlib patches

Found it :) Thanks > On 22-Apr-2020, at 2:43 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > I think Aditya wrote something about this before? Maybe Vaibhav? > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:27 PM Eshan Dhawan wrote: >> >> hello everyone, >> After making changes in Newlib. >> How can I test /build Newlib patc

Re: Testing Newlib patches

I think Aditya wrote something about this before? Maybe Vaibhav? On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:27 PM Eshan Dhawan wrote: > > hello everyone, > After making changes in Newlib. > How can I test /build Newlib patches against rtems? > > thanks > -Eshan > ___ >

Testing Newlib patches

hello everyone, After making changes in Newlib. How can I test /build Newlib patches against rtems? thanks -Eshan ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: RTEMS examples build failed

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:42 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 7:10 AM Chris Johns wrote: >> >> On 21/4/20 7:03 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:33 PM Sebastian Huber >> > > > > wrote: >> >

Re: New build system update

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:14 AM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > Hello, > > as a follow up of the issues mentioned here > > https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-April/059472.html > > I modified the build system specification to remove the use of > Doorstop-specific features. This includes the fo

Re: [PATCH] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:33 AM Utkarsh Rai wrote: > > Rationale for a new test- > > >Although most of the test cases for this test have been taken from > >clockrealtime, > adding it to the current test with CLOCK_MONOTONIC may break the existing > cases. > > >This test has a new case which test

Re: porting aio.h to newlib

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:32 AM Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 5:11 PM Eshan Dhawan > wrote: > >> hello everyone, >> >> RTEMS has the implementation of aio.h. >> But for simplicity it needs to be shifted to newlib. >> where would be the header file added and >> where would be

Re: RTEMS examples build failed

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 7:10 AM Chris Johns wrote: > On 21/4/20 7:03 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:33 PM Sebastian Huber > > > > wrote: > > We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We could copy the wscript of the > >

New build system update

Hello, as a follow up of the issues mentioned here https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-April/059472.html I modified the build system specification to remove the use of Doorstop-specific features. This includes the following attributes: * active * derived * header * level * normative

Re: fdt_rw.c: Unchecked return value (CID #1047324) (#3947)

On 21/04/2020 13:24, Christian Mauderer wrote: On 21/04/2020 11:57, Utkarsh Rai wrote: As is suggested in the ticket I checked for return value checking in the upstream and it is not present. Should I send a patch that checks for the error value (FDT_END)?

Re: fdt_rw.c: Unchecked return value (CID #1047324) (#3947)

On 21/04/2020 11:57, Utkarsh Rai wrote: > As is suggested in the ticket I > checked for return value checking in the upstream and it is not present. > Should I send a patch that checks for the error value (FDT_END)? > >

[PATCH] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

Rationale for a new test- >Although most of the test cases for this test have been taken from >clockrealtime, adding it to the current test with CLOCK_MONOTONIC may break the existing cases. >This test has a new case which tests for no change of delay with monotonic >clock when the realtime clo

fdt_rw.c: Unchecked return value (CID #1047324) (#3947)

As is suggested in the ticket I checked for return value checking in the upstream and it is not present. Should I send a patch that checks for the error value (FDT_END)? ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://l