I've applied the patch and will run the tests. If OK, then I should be
pushing soon.
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> I'm having trouble standing up a sparc-rtems5/erc32 build right now,
> so I can't test this.
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
I'm having trouble standing up a sparc-rtems5/erc32 build right now,
so I can't test this.
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>> This looks fine to me, and I'll commit after I can test it. (We
>> currently don't ap
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> This looks fine to me, and I'll commit after I can test it. (We
> currently don't apply any significance to --signed-off-by in RTEMS
> Project.) I'm investigating your inquiry on the 0/1 cover letter.
>
I am ok with it if it tests OK with y
This looks fine to me, and I'll commit after I can test it. (We
currently don't apply any significance to --signed-off-by in RTEMS
Project.) I'm investigating your inquiry on the 0/1 cover letter.
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 5:21 AM, Martin Erik Werner
wrote:
> _Timespec_Equal_to() does not set errno
_Timespec_Equal_to() does not set errno, hence avoid using perror(),
instead use fprintf() to stderr, and extend the error message to provide
information about what the error is (measured timer value after
re-arming is not equal to the configured interval), and how large of a
difference was measure
