On 22/1/19 5:24 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
> Thanks, this works. See v2 of the default prefix patch.
>
Both are OK to push.
Thanks
Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 21/01/2019 16:49, Jiri Gaisler wrote:
Fourth take on adding a bsp for a RISC-V GRLIB cpu, taking into account
previous comments.
Jiri Gaisler (6):
grlib: Fix inludes
grlib: make apbuart driver independent of bsp
grlib: use rtems_interrupt_handler_install() for all interrupt
hand
On 17/01/2019 09:29, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello,
I would like to add a "freebsd-12" branch to libbsd which tracks the
FreeBSD 12 stable branch instead of the trunk. I would like to figure
out if it is possible to maintain this branch more easily for
production systems. The libbsd master wil
Hello Chris,
On 20/12/2018 07:46, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Sorry but I have no time to review this and consider it until next year.
No problem, take your time. I work on this since April this year from
time to time, so it can wait a couple of more weeks.
had you time to look at this?
The f
Use OS prefix + "rtems" + $rtems_version as the default prefix to
automatically separate different RTEMS versions.
Close #3679.
---
source-builder/sb/options.py | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/source-builder/sb/options.py b/source-builder/sb/options.py
index 485..7d1
http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s13.html#purpose14
Update #3679.
---
source-builder/sb/linux.py | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/source-builder/sb/linux.py b/source-builder/sb/linux.py
index 9d90288..e6c5470 100644
--- a/source-builder/sb/linux.py
+++ b/source-bui
Sebastian Huber (2):
sb: Change Linux default prefix to "/opt"
sb: Change default prefix
source-builder/sb/linux.py | 1 +
source-builder/sb/options.py | 6 ++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
--
2.16.4
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.or
Hello,
in the documentation sometimes the name "executive" and sometimes
"kernel" is used for RTEMS itself. I think "kernel" should be better
used for systems with a kernel/user space separation. I will use RTEMS
executive throughout the documentation if nobody objects.
--
Sebastian Huber, e
Hello,
I would like to introduce a rule for the Sphinx documentation:
"Use CamelCase for Sphinx reference names, e.g.
.. _QuickStart:"
The rational for this is that CamelCase is not used much in the RTEMS
world, so this makes it easy to grep for references.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brai
I think this is appropriate for terminology.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:26 AM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in the documentation sometimes the name "executive" and sometimes
> "kernel" is used for RTEMS itself. I think "kernel" should be better
> used fo
I mean, yes let's call it executive. There is no "kernel" in RTEMS.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:32 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
> I think this is appropriate for terminology.
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:26 AM Sebastian Huber <
> sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> in the docu
Hello all,
I'm debugging a problem for someone, and they appear to be using a simple
binary semaphore with a timeout that might be triggering a bug. I can't
find a test case for simple binary semaphores in RTEMS with timeout, am I
missing something? I also don't see tests for binary semaphores wit
I don't object.
However, if you go back in time to the early RTEMS days, executive and
kernel were used interchangeably. Both were less full-featured than what
was called an OS back in those days. Now that RTEMS has file systems,
networking, etc, it is proper under those old conventions to use OS
Hi
I put this on hold for the Christmas holidays and wanted to post what
worked and didn't for me. This is on Centos 7 building C, C++ and Ada to
target sparc-rtems5 using the RSB master.
I tried various gcc versions with Ada support. I ensured which gcc I was
using by putting it at the front of
On 23/1/19 9:04 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Notice that the build succeeds when using a native version that matches the
> version being built cross. This is in keeping with long-standing advice.
Should the RSB be taught to check for gcc and the native version if an Ada build
is requested?
Can we
On 23/1/19 5:34 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> I don't object.
Is executive the right abstraction? Both terms are an abstraction because we
have a single address space and literal or formal interpretation breaks down. I
see the physical separation as an implementation detail.
Which term is the bette
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:08 PM Chris Johns wrote:
> On 23/1/19 9:04 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Notice that the build succeeds when using a native version that matches
> the
> > version being built cross. This is in keeping with long-standing advice.
>
> Should the RSB be taught to check for gc
Hello Joel,
On 22/01/2019 23:04, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
I put this on hold for the Christmas holidays and wanted to post what
worked and didn't for me. This is on Centos 7 building C, C++ and Ada
to target sparc-rtems5 using the RSB master.
I tried various gcc versions with Ada support. I
On 23/1/19 12:34 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Chris,
>
> On 20/12/2018 07:46, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry but I have no time to review this and consider it until next year.
>>
>> No problem, take your time. I work on this since April this year from time to
>> time, so it can wait a
On 22/01/2019 23:42, Chris Johns wrote:
On 23/1/19 5:34 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I don't object.
Is executive the right abstraction? Both terms are an abstraction because we
have a single address space and literal or formal interpretation breaks down. I
see the physical separation as an impleme
On 23/1/19 5:50 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 22/01/2019 23:42, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 23/1/19 5:34 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> I don't object.
>> Is executive the right abstraction? Both terms are an abstraction because we
>> have a single address space and literal or formal interpretation br
On 23/01/2019 07:49, Chris Johns wrote:
On 23/1/19 12:34 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Chris,
On 20/12/2018 07:46, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Sorry but I have no time to review this and consider it until next year.
No problem, take your time. I work on this since April this year from time to
t
On 23/1/19 6:13 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 23/01/2019 07:49, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 23/1/19 12:34 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> Hello Chris,
>>>
>>> On 20/12/2018 07:46, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Sorry but I have no time to review this and consider it until next year.
No problem, ta
On 23/01/2019 08:23, Chris Johns wrote:
I am OK with something new and better but we need to make sure what we offer is
consistent and makes sense to users. I am concerned users will become confused
if we have multiple approaches with separate code, set up, post processing and
documentation. I am
On 22/01/2019 17:35, Gedare Bloom wrote:
Hello all,
I'm debugging a problem for someone, and they appear to be using a
simple binary semaphore with a timeout that might be triggering a bug.
I can't find a test case for simple binary semaphores in RTEMS with
timeout, am I missing something? I
25 matches
Mail list logo
