On 6/11/2015 7:31 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 06/11/15 15:12, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>> >I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development
>>> >cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation
>>> >this is the case. A
On 06/11/15 15:12, Chris Johns wrote:
On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development
>cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation
>this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google Code-In,
>and bumpi
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development
>> cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation
>> this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google
On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development
> cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation
> this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google Code-In,
> and bumping the tool versions could be a set o
Hi,
The issue of recursive calls of callocs was fixed in RTEMS mainline adding
-fno-builtin in the calloc.c compilation, but we made a gcc patch in order
to use -fno-builtin-calloc instead of -fno-builtin, this is more specific
and disables only calloc builtin optimization.
Currently there is an o
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
>
> On 05/11/15 15:50, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Sebastian Huber
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hello,
>>> >
>>> >I would like to add the tools for RTEMS 4.12 to the RSB. The question is
>>> >which GCC version should
Hi Sebastian,
I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development
cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation
this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google Code-In,
and bumping the tool versions could be a set of tasks. If you would
like to do on
On 05/11/15 15:50, Daniel Gutson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I would like to add the tools for RTEMS 4.12 to the RSB. The question is
>which GCC version should we use? Since our release process is so slow I tend
>to use GCC 6 since it includes su
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to add the tools for RTEMS 4.12 to the RSB. The question is
> which GCC version should we use? Since our release process is so slow I tend
> to use GCC 6 since it includes support for OpenMP and C++11 threads out of
