On 12/09/17 15:58, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
On 11/09/17 16:03, Sebastian Huber wrote:
- Joel Sherrill schrieb:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
Ok, but why do you think tha
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> On 12/09/17 15:58, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Sebastian Huber
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/09/17 16:03, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>
- Joel Sherrill schrieb:
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Se
On 12/09/17 17:07, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Sure. I still think it is wrong for an RTEMS application to set it to
shared since there isn't another process to share it with but it seems
to be compliant.
This makes porting of applications not originally designed for RTEMS a
bit easier.
--
Sebast
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> On 11/09/17 16:03, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
>> - Joel Sherrill schrieb:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Huber <
>>> sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>>
Ok, but why do you think that this is an error?
On Sep 12, 2017 11:56 PM, "Sebastian Huber" <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
On 12/09/17 17:07, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Sure. I still think it is wrong for an RTEMS application to set it to
> shared since there isn't another process to share it with but it seems to
> be compliant.
>
Thi
Sure. I still think it is wrong for an RTEMS application to set it to
shared since there isn't another process to share it with but it seems to
be compliant.
On Sep 12, 2017 10:03 AM, "Gedare Bloom" wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
> > On 12/09/17 15:58, Gedar
On 11/09/17 16:03, Sebastian Huber wrote:
- Joel Sherrill schrieb:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
Ok, but why do you think that this is an error? We can share the
synchronization objects among processes.
We don't have proc
- Joel Sherrill schrieb:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Huber <
> sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
> > Ok, but why do you think that this is an error? We can share the
> > synchronization objects among processes.
> >
>
> We don't have processes. How do you propose
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> Ok, but why do you think that this is an error? We can share the
> synchronization objects among processes.
>
We don't have processes. How do you propose to share between
processes when RTEMS is funda
Ok, but why do you think that this is an error? We can share the
synchronization objects among processes.
- Joel Sherrill schrieb:
> I have no idea how that is much clearer except that pthreads have defined
> macros for scope and thus an invalid value is an error.
>
> But POSIX isn't good
I have no idea how that is much clearer except that pthreads have defined
macros for scope and thus an invalid value is an error.
But POSIX isn't good at addressing error cases which existed based on the
profiles defined in PSE52-54. And those were not updated for POSIX 2008 or
2013
On Sep 8, 201
- Joel Sherrill schrieb:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Sebastian Huber <
> sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
> > Since we have only one process, sharing between processes is trivial.
> >
> > Close #3124.
> > ---
> > cpukit/posix/include/rtems/posix/semaphore.h | 1 -
> >
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> Since we have only one process, sharing between processes is trivial.
>
> Close #3124.
> ---
> cpukit/posix/include/rtems/posix/semaphore.h | 1 -
> cpukit/posix/include/rtems/posix/semaphoreimpl.h
Since we have only one process, sharing between processes is trivial.
Close #3124.
---
cpukit/posix/include/rtems/posix/semaphore.h | 1 -
cpukit/posix/include/rtems/posix/semaphoreimpl.h | 1 -
cpukit/posix/src/semaphorecreatesupp.c | 7 ---
cpukit/posix/src/seminit.c
14 matches
Mail list logo
