Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On 02/02/16 10:04, Chris Johns wrote: [ Sorry, laptop slipped and it sent the email ... ] On 2/02/2016 9:49 PM, Chris Johns wrote: >On 2/02/2016 7:25 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >>> >>>How do we want to proceed? Chris, what is your opinion with respect to >>>this EXTERN magic? >>> >>>some

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

[ Sorry, laptop slipped and it sent the email ... ] On 2/02/2016 9:49 PM, Chris Johns wrote: > On 2/02/2016 7:25 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >>> >>> How do we want to proceed? Chris, what is your opinion with respect to >>> this EXTERN magic? >>> >>> some.h >>> >>> #ifndef SOME_XYZ_EXTERN >>> #d

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On 2/02/2016 7:25 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > On 29/01/16 07:28, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >> >> On 28/01/16 03:54, Gedare Bloom wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Sebastian Huber >>> wrote: > > >On 27/01/16 15:01, Joel Sherrill wrote: > >> > >> > >>On T

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On 29/01/16 07:28, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 28/01/16 03:54, Gedare Bloom wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > >On 27/01/16 15:01, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >> >>On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Sebastian Huber >>>>

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On 28/01/16 03:54, Gedare Bloom wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > >On 27/01/16 15:01, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >> >>On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Sebastian Huber >>>> wrote: >> >> On 26/01/16 16:51, Joel Sher

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > On 27/01/16 15:01, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Sebastian Huber >> > > wrote: >> >> On 26/01/16 16:51, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >> Hi >> >>

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On 27/01/16 15:01, Joel Sherrill wrote: + Do you have any size metrics for current --disable-posix on a BSP with function sections enabled versus this new way? No, I was not interested in this comparison since my goal is to always enable POSIX in the long run. The size

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On 27/01/16 15:01, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Sebastian Huber > wrote: On 26/01/16 16:51, Joel Sherrill wrote: Hi I have questions that probably impact all/most of the patches so thought I w

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 26/01/16 16:51, Joel Sherrill wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I have questions that probably impact all/most of the patches so thought >> I would start another thread. Then it is just detailed review of the >>

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On 26/01/16 17:28, Sebastian Huber wrote: Executable sizes for the SPARC/SIS minimum.exe. || ||= Text =||= Data =||= BSS =||= Workspace =||= Non-Text =|| ||= 4.9=|| 45808 || 2324 || 2708 ||3288 || 8320 || ||= 4.10 =|| 30032 || 1300 || 1296 ||

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On 26/01/16 17:02, Sebastian Huber wrote: + Do you have any size metrics for current --disable-posix on a BSP with function sections enabled versus this new way? No, I was not interested in this comparison since my goal is to always enable POSIX in the long run. The size will drop a bit.

Re: general comments on sysiinit patches

On 26/01/16 16:51, Joel Sherrill wrote: Hi I have questions that probably impact all/most of the patches so thought I would start another thread. Then it is just detailed review of the individual patches. + We have used EXTERN to avoid duplicating extern and instantiating data. You appear t