- Am 20. Jul 2018 um 17:35 schrieb joel j...@rtems.org:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Amaan Cheval
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
[...]
>> - How our GCC toolchains implicitly have "-lrtemsbsp -lrtemscpu" for
>> when -qrtems is used[1]
>>
>> [1]
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Amaan Cheval
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Sebastian Huber
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - Am 19. Jul 2018 um 17:03 schrieb joel j...@rtems.org:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Am 19. Jul 2018 um 17:03 schrieb joel j...@rtems.org:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> >
>> >> For now we don't need to generali
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
>
> - Am 19. Jul 2018 um 17:03 schrieb joel j...@rtems.org:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >
> >> For now we don't need to generalize this approach or make any kind of
- Am 19. Jul 2018 um 17:03 schrieb joel j...@rtems.org:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
>> For now we don't need to generalize this approach or make any kind of
>> facility like this available outside of testing.
>>
>> (FYI: 0 is a "nop" on some architectures)
>>
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> For now we don't need to generalize this approach or make any kind of
> facility like this available outside of testing.
>
> (FYI: 0 is a "nop" on some architectures)
>
> Gedare
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>
For now we don't need to generalize this approach or make any kind of
facility like this available outside of testing.
(FYI: 0 is a "nop" on some architectures)
Gedare
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> I thought about adding a _CPU_Illegal_instruction() function to
> . B
I thought about adding a _CPU_Illegal_instruction() function to
. But, do you want such a toxic function in a header
file or librtemscpu.a? Now it is isolated in the test and can do no harm.
On 19/07/18 15:35, Joel Sherrill wrote:
This looks like a good approach. If 0 is a valid instruction on
This looks like a good approach. If 0 is a valid instruction on
some architecture, we can add a conditional.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:55 AM, Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On some architectures/simulators it is difficult to provoke an
> exception with misaligned o
