This should be fine. It's an "internal" API so we just need to ensure
consistency in our kernel code.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> Do you have consensus with the RTEMS group for this change which breaks API
> introduced
> last year? Otherwise, I will leave it up to the
Yes, we already have several changes that require an RTEMS internal
update, e.g. the recent type definition changes. Now its a good time to
incorporate such changes, since there will be a major tool update based
the recently released GCC 6.1.
On 03/05/16 00:43, Gedare Bloom wrote:
This should
