On 30/09/2014 6:40 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 29/09/14 08:15, Chris Johns wrote:
Why do we not move the tool chain patches back to the RTEMS sources? I
think it would be nice if you can check out a particular RTEMS version
and then use the RSB and say: build me the tool chain for this versi
On 30/09/2014 6:28 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 30/09/14 00:48, Chris Johns wrote:
On 30/09/2014 3:26 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
On Sep 29, 2014, at 02:15 , Chris Johns wrote:
I can add the scripts to INI file format. I feel XML is too heavy a
requirement for parsing. There is a single C++ f
On 29/09/14 08:15, Chris Johns wrote:
Why do we not move the tool chain patches back to the RTEMS sources? I
think it would be nice if you can check out a particular RTEMS version
and then use the RSB and say: build me the tool chain for this version.
I am ok with the INI file that defines t
On 30/09/14 00:48, Chris Johns wrote:
On 30/09/2014 3:26 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
On Sep 29, 2014, at 02:15 , Chris Johns wrote:
I can add the scripts to INI file format. I feel XML is too heavy a
requirement for parsing. There is a single C++ file that does it and
Python handles the format
On 30/09/2014 3:26 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
On Sep 29, 2014, at 02:15 , Chris Johns wrote:
I can add the scripts to INI file format. I feel XML is too heavy a
requirement for parsing. There is a single C++ file that does it and
Python handles the format easily. I also think it is easier to re
On Sep 29, 2014, at 02:15 , Chris Johns wrote:
> I can add the scripts to INI file format. I feel XML is too heavy a
> requirement for parsing. There is a single C++ file that does it and
> Python handles the format easily. I also think it is easier to read.
Yes, INI is easier to read but XML
On 26/09/2014 7:40 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 18/09/14 00:58, Chris Johns wrote:
On 17/09/2014 6:49 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
currently the RTEMS sources contain no reference to the intended tool
chain versions (Binutils, Newlib, GCC, GDB) and patches for the tools.
This is specified elsew
On 18/09/14 00:58, Chris Johns wrote:
On 17/09/2014 6:49 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
currently the RTEMS sources contain no reference to the intended tool
chain versions (Binutils, Newlib, GCC, GDB) and patches for the tools.
This is specified elsewhere, for example in the RTEMS tools repository
On 17/09/2014 6:49 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
currently the RTEMS sources contain no reference to the intended tool
chain versions (Binutils, Newlib, GCC, GDB) and patches for the tools.
This is specified elsewhere, for example in the RTEMS tools repository.
The RSB has the ability to report
Hello,
currently the RTEMS sources contain no reference to the intended tool chain
versions (Binutils, Newlib, GCC, GDB) and patches for the tools. This is
specified elsewhere, for example in the RTEMS tools repository.
Since the RTEMS version is tightly coupled to a particular tool chain ve
10 matches
Mail list logo
