Re: Documentation index entries for functions

On 15/10/2022 12:58 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 8:53 AM Sebastian Huber > > > wrote: > On 14.10.22 15:45, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > > While teaching an RTEMS class this week, I noticed that rtems_build_name > > is i

Re: Ping on ticket 4728 + patch

I'll check it out - I will need to set up my host to duplicate the same tester builds. I also noticed a build failure in the frdme310arty BSP variant when building all tests with POSIX enabled: [4152/4326] Compiling testsuites/validation/tc-sem-flush.c start.o: in function `.L0 ': /home/alan/rtems

[PATCH rtems] Remove remnants of rtems_io_lookup_name

Updates #3420. --- cpukit/include/adainclude/rtems-io.adb | 21 - testsuites/sptests/sp21/sp21.scn | 3 --- 2 files changed, 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/cpukit/include/adainclude/rtems-io.adb b/cpukit/include/adainclude/rtems-io.adb index 41a315c..addc2e2 100644 --- a

Re: Documentation index entries for functions

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 8:53 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 14.10.22 15:45, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > > While teaching an RTEMS class this week, I noticed that rtems_build_name > > is in the Classic API Guide index twice. Once with () and once without. > > I

Re: Documentation index entries for functions

On 14.10.22 15:45, Joel Sherrill wrote: While teaching an RTEMS class this week, I noticed that rtems_build_name is in the Classic API Guide index twice. Once with () and once without. I started to fix that one case when I noticed that it appears we are just very inconsistent. (rtemsdocs) [

Documentation index entries for functions

Hi While teaching an RTEMS class this week, I noticed that rtems_build_name is in the Classic API Guide index twice. Once with () and once without. I started to fix that one case when I noticed that it appears we are just very inconsistent. (rtemsdocs) [joel@localhost c-user]$ grep -r index:: |

Re: Ping on ticket 4728 + patch

Pushed. Thanks for pinging. It does help. Since you are looking at the riscv BSPs, could you look at the four BSP build failures reported here: https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/build/2022-September/036496.html I think they are all variants so one fix (maybe repeated) should do it. The reported

Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] More robust idle thread creation and TLS handling

On 10.10.22 10:17, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 06/10/2022 10:23, Sebastian Huber wrote: This patch set started with an 8 byte overwrite of the interrupt stack while porting an application from RTEMS 5 to 6. The overwrite was due to a mismatch of the size returned by _TLS_Get_allocation_size() an