Haha, don't worry about it. It's really a non-blocker we can
absolutely handle after GSoC just as well. I just wanted to confirm in
case I'd missed something!
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> I am sorry. I will have to dig this up and commit it.
>
> I will try to do this be
I am sorry. I will have to dig this up and commit it.
I will try to do this before I leave about lunch.
Looks like we both have work to do before the end of GSoC. :)
--joel
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Amaan Cheval
wrote:
> Hey Joel!
>
> I'm not sure if this ever made it upstream - if it
Hey Joel!
I'm not sure if this ever made it upstream - if it did, could you dig
the commit up?
I'll leave the x86_64's bsp_specs empty and make the RSB backporting
patches accordingly. If not, no rush, we should just add a ticket or
something so as to not lose track of it entirely after GSoC ends
To make my previous email clearer, here's what I meant with the
"minimal" GCC patch required (attached).
To manually test, you can place gcc-STARTFILE_SPEC.patch in
$RSB/rtems/patches/ and then "git apply rsb-startfile.diff" to the RSB
repo. Then build GCC and confirm that "x86_64-rtems5-gcc -dump
Hey, Joel!
The x86_64 BSP currently uses an empty bsp_specs file contingent on
(at least the x86-64 parts of) this email thread's patch making it
upstream to GCC, and making their way into the RSB.
2 options:
- 1. Make the upstream GCC commit (at least the parts adding
rtemself64.h, editing confi
Thanks. I will try to deal with this Monday.
My specs patches are not ready to push to gcc so I need to focus on
just the parts to make x86_64 right.
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Amaan Cheval
wrote:
> To be clear, I applied this patch (with my fixes) on the 7.3 release
> through the RSB to
To be clear, I applied this patch (with my fixes) on the 7.3 release
through the RSB to test, not on GCC's master branch.
> to add i386/rtemself64.h
What you sent in this email thread adds rtemself64.h already. Do you
mean you'd like to split the commits up or something?
The only changes I made
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Amaan Cheval
wrote:
> I just compiled my local fixed copy (adding rtems.h back in) and
> there's good news! With the patch, the x86_64 compile stub works with
> a blank bsp_specs file!
>
Awesome!
Can you send me your changes as a patch? I am thinking I need to m
I just compiled my local fixed copy (adding rtems.h back in) and
there's good news! With the patch, the x86_64 compile stub works with
a blank bsp_specs file!
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Amaan Cheval wrote:
> Hey!
>
> Thanks so much for sharing this, it's quite useful to put your earlier
>
Hey!
Thanks so much for sharing this, it's quite useful to put your earlier
email[1] about minimzing the bsp_specs in context.
>From looking ahead a bit without testing (still compiling), the patch
may need an ENDFILE_SPEC definition as well for "crtend.o" (it defines
__TMC_END__ which crtbegin.o
10 matches
Mail list logo
