t; > Hi
> >
> > Phillip Smith pinged me at the FSW via Slack about this set of patches
> he
> proposed be added to the 4.10 branch.
> >
> > https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-April/025610.html
> <https://lists.rtems.org/p
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:47 PM Gedare Bloom wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:30 PM Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Phillip Smith pinged me at the FSW via Slack about this set of patches
> he proposed be added to the 4.10 branch.
>
Hi Joel,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:30 PM Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Phillip Smith pinged me at the FSW via Slack about this set of patches he
> proposed be added to the 4.10 branch.
>
> https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-April/025610.html
>
> I ass
Hi
Phillip Smith pinged me at the FSW via Slack about this set of patches he
proposed be added to the 4.10 branch.
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-April/025610.html
I assume this matches what their project requires. Given that 4.10 is the
last unirprocessor version and we appear to
I have a platform which has Marvell 64360 + PowerPC IBM750FX onboard.
Sources and binaries of RTEMS 4.10 + custom BSP came with the device. I
would know if there is a sort of "porting guide" for BSPs, in order to do
the least number of modifications needed to use that BSP on RTEMS 5.
Alt
Hi
I use this to test the master but it doesn't seem to work for 4.10 branch
of rtems-tools.
nohup time ./rtems-tools/tester/rtems-bsp-builder \
--rtems=/home/joel/rtems-410-work/rtems \
--build-path=build \
--prefix=/home/joel/rtems-410-work/bsps \
--log=build.log \
--warnings-r
Hello all,
In terms of prioritizing any code review, I think that mainly the new
code is in patches 02, 03 (two new test cases), and 10, 11 (the fix).
The other commits are back-porting existing test cases from 4.11 or
master into 4.10, and deleting any test code that is not relevant to
4.10
This patch series fixes the PIP as described in #3361 to allow
for proper step-down of priority under:
vertical nesting
horizontal nesting
lock timeouts, and
lock flushing.
A few commits backport tests from 4.11 and 5 (master)
to the 4.10 branch to demonstrate the broken behavior of PIP
There is POSIX code that does not build on Windows.
Close #3291
---
rtems/config/4.10/rtems-lm32.bset | 3 +++
rtems/config/4.10/rtems-sparc.bset | 3 +++
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/rtems/config/4.10/rtems-lm32.bset
b/rtems/config/4.10/rtems-lm32.bset
index c227def..64906ed
This change lets the 4.10 branch post build results to bu...@rtems.org.
The patch remove asciidoc and adds markdown support.
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
This change lets the 4.10 branch post build results to bu...@rtems.org.
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Add for long term support.
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Thanks!
On Jan 12, 2018 3:02 PM, "Gedare Bloom" wrote:
> I pushed these patches, and I also updated the 4.10 release notes page
> for changes in 4.10.3 with these and a few others that had not been
> documented yet.
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Joel Sherrill
I pushed these patches, and I also updated the 4.10 release notes page
for changes in 4.10.3 with these and a few others that had not been
documented yet.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> These are all obviously known issues which were worthy of being included
>
These are all obviously known issues which were worthy of being included
on the 4.11 branch and/or master which applied to 4.10.
Since this are the final approved patch, my vote is to apply them. The only
discussion should be if the bug exists in 4.10.
--joel
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:13 PM
I went through commits between the 4.10/4.11 split and
January 2013, and selected the following as suitable
to apply for 4.10 maintenance. Not all of these had
open PRs/tickets, and I did not reformat any patches
but simply cherry-picked and corrected any conflicts.
Ralf Kirchner (1):
dosfs
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 22/12/2017 08:21, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Gedare posted a patch about GNU inlines as I recall. It was needed with newer
>> GCC version compiling the old cross version. Just wanted to make sure it got
>> reviewed and pushed also
>
> Is this h
On 22/12/2017 08:21, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Gedare posted a patch about GNU inlines as I recall. It was needed with newer
> GCC version compiling the old cross version. Just wanted to make sure it got
> reviewed and pushed also
Is this https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2724 or
https://devel.rtems.or
What about the one you posted for GCC on the 4.10 branch? Did it make it
> in?
>
> Is this to me? I am sorry do you have any more detail?
>
> Chris
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 22/12/2017 07:03, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> What about the one you posted for GCC on the 4.10 branch? Did it make it in?
Is this to me? I am sorry do you have any more detail?
Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mail
What about the one you posted for GCC on the 4.10 branch? Did it make it in?
On Dec 21, 2017 1:36 PM, "Chris Johns" wrote:
> On 22/12/2017 04:28, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > This is for the 4.10 branch of the rtems-tools.git repo. There are a
> > few version numbers in
On 22/12/2017 04:28, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> This is for the 4.10 branch of the rtems-tools.git repo. There are a
> few version numbers in the branch that are wrong, which makes at least
> tester unusable.
Thanks, this looks good to me.
Chris
This is for the 4.10 branch of the rtems-tools.git repo. There are a
few version numbers in the branch that are wrong, which makes at least
tester unusable.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> ---
> rtemstoolkit/version.py | 2 +-
> tester/rtems/version.cfg |
(ValueError, SystemError):
#
# Default to an internal string.
#
-_version = '4.12'
+_version = '4.10'
_revision = 'not_released'
_version_str = '%s.%s' % (_version, _revision)
_released = False
diff --git a/tester/rtems/version.cfg b/tester/rtems/v
Hi
I have backported the ".tcfg" file support and all BSPs appear to be
building except avr, h8300, and m32c. The h8300 and m32c should
be OK after I update the RSB and build new tools. I didn't have tools
for those two before.
I am not sure about the avr and will look at it but it isn't a high
p
I should have mentioned. This is using the 4.10 branch of the
RSB and not the rc1 candidate. I started doing this before you
cut that.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 05/09/2016 04:46, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>>
> Thank you for testing
/libc/include
-B/home/joel/rtems-4.11-work/tools/4.10/m32c-rtems4.10/bin/
-B/home/joel/rtems-4.11-work/tools/4.10/m32c-rtems4.10/lib/ -isystem
/home/joel/rtems-4.11-work/tools/4.10/m32c-rtems4.10/include -isystem
/home/joel/rtems-4.11-work/tools/4.10/m32c-rtems4.10/sys-include
-mcpu=m32cm
-newlib-1.18.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-1/build/h8300-rtems4.10/newlib/targ-include
-isystem
/data/home/joel/rtems-4.11-work/rtems-source-builder/rtems/build/h8300-rtems4.10-gcc-4.4.7-newlib-1.18.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-1/gcc-4.4.7/newlib/libc/include
-B/home/joel/rtems-4.11-work/tools/4.10/h8300-rtems4.10/bin/
-B
On 28/05/2016 1:04 AM, Worth Burruss wrote:
Chris, If you would prefer this as a ticket let me know.
Yes a ticket would be good.
Thanks.
Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Attached are 3 patches I needed to build 4.10 tools for coldfire processors
(m68k) under
windows (7 and 10) using MSYS2. I have been meaning to send them for awhile.
The primary patch is for GCC and is needed to build older GCC with newer GCC.
I found
this patch on the GCC mailing list and
On 04/03/2016 23:46, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 28/02/16 00:07, Chris Johns wrote:
Hi,
Should we create branches for 4.9 and 4.10 in the RSB repo?
Should the 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 build set files and config scripts be
removed from master?
I do not see the point of maintaining the branches for
On 28/02/16 00:07, Chris Johns wrote:
Hi,
Should we create branches for 4.9 and 4.10 in the RSB repo?
Should the 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 build set files and config scripts be
removed from master?
I do not see the point of maintaining the branches for releases and the
master and I can see a
On 29/02/2016 01:48, Gedare Bloom wrote:
I'm in favor, because I have observed new users building the 4.11
tools and not knowing they have to branch to 4.11 in rtems.git. Having
to "branch" to get the 4.11 tools should help make the look-and-feel
be consistent.
Thanks for the feedback (and Joe
> On Feb 27, 2016 5:08 PM, "Chris Johns" wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Should we create branches for 4.9 and 4.10 in the RSB repo?
>>
>> Should the 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 build set files and config scripts be
>> removed from master?
>
> As long a
On Feb 27, 2016 5:08 PM, "Chris Johns" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Should we create branches for 4.9 and 4.10 in the RSB repo?
>
> Should the 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 build set files and config scripts be
> removed from master?
As long as we keep branches for them.
FWIW I woul
Hi,
Should we create branches for 4.9 and 4.10 in the RSB repo?
Should the 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 build set files and config scripts be
removed from master?
I do not see the point of maintaining the branches for releases and the
master and I can see a situation where the 4.11 build on master, ie
36 matches
Mail list logo
