psim failures with -O1

Hi, I thought it may be a good idea to set the optimization level for the psim BSP to `-O1`. The xilinx_zynq_a9_qemu has this and it is useful. The change causes the number of test failures to jump from around 20 to over 230. Is this expected? Thanks Chris _

[PATCH] build: Do not install test programs

--- testsuites/aclocal/env-rtemsbsp.m4 | 2 -- testsuites/benchmarks/Makefile.am | 4 +--- testsuites/fstests/Makefile.am | 4 +--- testsuites/libtests/Makefile.am| 3 +-- testsuites/mptests/Makefile.am | 4 +--- testsuites/psxtests/Makefile.am| 4 +--- testsuites/psxtmtests/Makef

Re: [PATCH] Add low level event recording support

On 28/1/19 9:55 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > how do we want to proceed with this? > You have answered my concerns and I am happy with what you are doing and this piece of code. I look forward to seeing the trace code being moved into libtrace or something like this and seeing it grow as a uni

Re: [PATCH] Add low level event recording support

On 29/01/2019 09:27, Chris Johns wrote: On 28/1/19 9:55 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: how do we want to proceed with this? You have answered my concerns and I am happy with what you are doing and this piece of code. Thanks for your review and comments. I look forward to seeing the trace code

Re: psim failures with -O1

On 29/01/2019 09:14, Chris Johns wrote: Hi, I thought it may be a good idea to set the optimization level for the psim BSP to `-O1`. The xilinx_zynq_a9_qemu has this and it is useful. The change causes the number of test failures to jump from around 20 to over 230. Is this expected? Yes, th

Re: [PATCH] Add low level event recording support

On 29/1/19 7:40 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 29/01/2019 09:27, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 28/1/19 9:55 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> how do we want to proceed with this? >>> >> You have answered my concerns and I am happy with what you are doing and this >> piece of code. > > Thanks for your rev

Re: psim failures with -O1

On 29/1/19 7:48 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 29/01/2019 09:14, Chris Johns wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I thought it may be a good idea to set the optimization level for the psim >> BSP >> to `-O1`. The xilinx_zynq_a9_qemu has this and it is useful. >> >> The change causes the number of test failures to

[PATCH] rtems-record: New program

--- misc/record/record-client.c | 448 +++ misc/record/record-main.c| 309 +++ misc/record/record-text.c| 197 + misc/record/rtems/recordclient.h | 139 misc/record/rtems/recorddata.h |

Re: RTEMS Executive vs. Kernel

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 4:49 PM Chris Johns wrote: > On 26/1/19 11:22 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 5:15 PM Chris Johns > wrote: > > > > On 26/1/19 9:43 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > We have a full shelf of old reports. A few would

Re: RTEMS Executive vs. Kernel

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 9:02 AM Gedare Bloom > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 4:49 PM Chris Johns wrote: > >> On 26/1/19 11:22 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 5:15 PM Chris Johns > > wrote: >> > >> > On 26/1/19 9:43 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: >>

Zynq Runtime Socket Buffer Allocation Memory Reporting Question

Hi, I have a question in regards to changing the size of the socket buffers on the Zynq. It would appear that I can't use the method described in Ch 4.3 of the Networking pdf since I don't have the Ethernet driver and attach functions defined in the BSP. I believe this is largely due to the fac

Re: Zynq Runtime Socket Buffer Allocation Memory Reporting Question

Hello Avinash, On 30/01/2019 02:08, Misra, Avinash wrote: Hi, I have a question in regards to changing the size of the socket buffers on the Zynq. It would appear that I can’t use the method described in Ch 4.3 of the Networking pdf since I don’t have the Ethernet driver and attach function