On 26/02/15 17:13, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/25/2015 09:38 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 24/02/15 22:48, Gedare Bloom wrote:
Sebastian,
Do you know if #1247 is still valid for current RTEMS and newlib?
Gedare
This is still valid.
Can you prove this claim?
The problem with this bug is t
On 02/25/2015 09:38 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 24/02/15 22:48, Gedare Bloom wrote:
Sebastian,
Do you know if #1247 is still valid for current RTEMS and newlib?
Gedare
This is still valid.
Can you prove this claim?
The problem with this bug is that nobody ever has come up with a proof,
On 25/02/15 12:21, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On February 25, 2015 3:38:04 AM EST, Sebastian
Huber wrote:
>On 24/02/15 22:48, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>Sebastian,
>>
>>Do you know if #1247 is still valid for current RTEMS and newlib?
We already have some configuration related to newlib for the extens
On February 25, 2015 3:38:04 AM EST, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>On 24/02/15 22:48, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> Sebastian,
>>
>> Do you know if #1247 is still valid for current RTEMS and newlib?
We already have some configuration related to newlib for the extension. Why
wouldn't wenbr able to account
On 24/02/15 22:48, Gedare Bloom wrote:
Sebastian,
Do you know if #1247 is still valid for current RTEMS and newlib?
Gedare
This is still valid. I think one of the reasons nobody touched this so
far is that the usage of locks will likely break all application
configurations.
--
Sebastian H
Sebastian,
Do you know if #1247 is still valid for current RTEMS and newlib?
Gedare
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
