Re: Phrases for CONSTRAINTS section in the directive documentation

On 23/01/2021 23:44, Chris Johns wrote: On 23/1/21 12:19 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:55 AM Andrew Butterfield mailto:andrew.butterfi...@scss.tcd.ie>> wrote: Hi Sebastian, I'd prefer 2. The directive may be called from an interrupt context (substit

[PATCH 5/6] nios2: Optimize ISR dispatch variant

Use _Thread_Do_dispatch() in _Nios2_ISR_Dispatch_with_shadow_non_preemptive(). --- .../score/cpu/nios2/nios2-eic-il-low-level.S | 102 ++ 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) diff --git a/cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2-eic-il-low-level.S b/cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2

[PATCH 4/6] nios2: Use Per_CPU_Control::isr_dispatch_disable

--- cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/include/rtems/score/cpu.h | 14 -- .../cpu/nios2/include/rtems/score/nios2-utility.h | 13 + cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2-context-switch.S | 12 ++-- cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2-eic-il-low-level.S | 15 +++ .../cpu/nios

[PATCH 1/6] nios2: Fix ISR dispatch variants

The thread dispatch disabled level moved to _Per_CPU_Information some time ago. --- cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2-eic-il-low-level.S | 7 +++ cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2-eic-rsie-low-level.S | 9 - 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/

[PATCH 2/6] nios2: Make _ISR_Is_in_progress() weak

This allows the BSP to override this function. --- cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2-isr-is-in-progress.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2-isr-is-in-progress.c b/cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2-isr-is-in-progress.c index 17eb8958a6..cb6ddb8c

[PATCH 3/6] nios2: Add TLS support

Update #4214. --- .../cpu/nios2/nios2-context-initialize.c | 19 +++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2-context-initialize.c b/cpukit/score/cpu/nios2/nios2-context-initialize.c index 1b7d1bbc9e..6950ce4bd6 100644 --- a/

[PATCH 6/6] nios2: Allow ISR nesting in dispatch variant

Rename _Nios2_ISR_Dispatch_with_shadow_non_preemptive() in _Nios2_ISR_Dispatch_with_shadow_register_set(). Remove _Nios2_ISR_Dispatch_with_shadow_preemptive(). --- cpukit/Makefile.am| 1 - .../score/cpu/nios2/nios2-eic-il-low-level.S | 23 ++- .../cpu/nios2/nios2-e

[PATCH 0/6] Updates for Nios II

This patch series brings the Nios II support up to date. Tests were performed on real hardware with a custom BSP. Sebastian Huber (6): nios2: Fix ISR dispatch variants nios2: Make _ISR_Is_in_progress() weak nios2: Add TLS support nios2: Use Per_CPU_Control::isr_dispatch_disable nios2: O

Re: [patch libBSD] dev/ofw: Use RTEMS OFW FDT implementation

ping. On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:01 PM G S Niteesh Babu wrote: > This commit modifies the OFW interface to the RTEMS FDT > implementation instead of the default FreeBSD. > --- > freebsd/sys/dev/ofw/openfirm.c| 2 ++ > freebsd/sys/dev/ofw/openfirm.h| 9

Re: [patch libBSD] dev/ofw: Use RTEMS OFW FDT implementation

Hello Niteesh, I think there is an open Question from Chris for that patch: https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-January/063988.html Best regards Christian Am 27.01.21 um 11:14 schrieb Niteesh G. S.: ping. On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:01 PM G S Niteesh Babu

Re: [PATCH 0/6] Updates for Nios II

Will these changes impact any documentation? The TLS addition seems like it could impact the CPU supplement. --joel On Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 3:13 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > This patch series brings the Nios II support up to date. Tests were > performed on rea

Re: Phrases for CONSTRAINTS section in the directive documentation

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 1:14 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 23/01/2021 23:44, Chris Johns wrote: > > > On 23/1/21 12:19 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:55 AM Andrew Butterfield > >> mailto:andrew.butterfi...@scss.tcd.ie>> > wrote: > >>

Re: [patch libBSD] dev/ofw: Use RTEMS OFW FDT implementation

Hello Christian, On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 3:59 PM Christian MAUDERER < christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > Hello Niteesh, > > I think there is an open Question from Chris for that patch: > > https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-January/063988.html I never received that mail,

Re: devel Digest, Vol 110, Issue 38

> > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 04:28:37 +1100 > From: Chris Johns > To: devel@rtems.org > Subject: Re: [patch libBSD] dev/ofw: Use RTEMS OFW FDT implementation > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On 20/1/21 7:31 pm, G S Niteesh Babu wrote: > > This commit modifies the OFW inte

Re: [patch libBSD] dev/ofw: Use RTEMS OFW FDT implementation

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:13 AM Niteesh G. S. wrote: > Hello Christian, > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 3:59 PM Christian MAUDERER < > christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > >> Hello Niteesh, >> >> I think there is an open Question from Chris for that patch: >> >> https://lists.rtems.org/pi

Coverity model file

Hello, we use a Coverity model file for https://scan.coverity.com/projects/rtems I have to issues with his model file. 1. You have to be an administrator to see it. 2. It is not version controlled. I suggest to add the model file to the RTEMS tools, for example "coverity/model.c". I would

[PATCH] score: Add _Thread_Demand_objects_information()

We do not need all the checks if we have a valid indentifier to a thread class object. Move _RTEMS_tasks_Free() to the only source file which calls this function. --- cpukit/include/rtems/rtems/tasksimpl.h | 16 cpukit/include/rtems/score/threadimpl.h | 25 ++

Re: Coverity model file

Super, let's do it. Changing it is a manual process. So whoever pushes the file in the tools repo should also be responsible to make sure it gets uploaded. I'm willing to do the upload on-demand. (Apparently the last coverity build failed.) On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:17 AM Sebastian Huber < seba

Re: [PATCH] score: Add _Thread_Demand_objects_information()

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:38 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > We do not need all the checks if we have a valid indentifier to a thread > class object. > > Move _RTEMS_tasks_Free() to the only source file which calls this > function. > --- > cpukit/include/rtems/r

Re: Coverity model file

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 1:10 PM Gedare Bloom wrote: > Super, let's do it. Changing it is a manual process. So whoever pushes the > file in the tools repo should also be responsible to make sure it gets > uploaded. I'm willing to do the upload on-demand. > +1 It would also be nice to add some mo

Fwd: DWARF Committee resumes meetings

In case anyone in the RTEMS Community is interested.in reviewing the proposals or participating. -- Forwarded message - From: Michael Eager Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 2:26 PM Subject: DWARF Committee resumes meetings To: , , < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>, GCC Mailing List The DWARF

Lots of BSPs have undefined references to TLS symbols

Hi https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/build/2021-January/024936.html shows lots (1345 which might be all) of failures like this across multiple architectures: 39 no-network arm/beagleboneblack build: configure: /home/joel/rtems-cron-6/rtems/configure --target=arm-\ rtems6 --enable-rte

Fwd: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for RTEMS

FYI -- Forwarded message - From: Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 9:21 PM Subject: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for RTEMS To: Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to RTEMS found with Coverity Scan. 11 new defect(s) introduced to RTEMS found with Cove

[PATCH v2] score: Add _Thread_Demand_objects_information()

We do not need all the checks if we have a valid indentifier to a thread class object. Using the new _Thread_Demand_objects_information() instead of the inline function _Thread_Get_objects_information() avoids dead code since for valid identifiers the API is valid and the return NULL path in _Thre

Re: [PATCH] score: Add _Thread_Demand_objects_information()

On 27/01/2021 21:25, Joel Sherrill wrote: Piling on Gedare's comment but also ... (1) If this is justifiable, then every use should have a comment block about why the id is known to be good. (2) What does this really save? That should be documented for the method. Seems like a micro-optimizat

Re: [patch libBSD] dev/ofw: Use RTEMS OFW FDT implementation

On 28/1/21 4:12 am, Niteesh G. S. wrote: > Hello Christian, > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 3:59 PM Christian MAUDERER > > wrote: > > Hello Niteesh, > > I think there is an open Question from Chris for that patch: > > https://lists.rtems.or

Re: Lots of BSPs have undefined references to TLS symbols

On 27/01/2021 22:41, Joel Sherrill wrote: https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/build/2021-January/024936.html shows lots (1345 which might be all) of failures like this across multiple architectures: It was an issue in the ol

Re: devel Digest, Vol 110, Issue 38

On 28/1/21 4:25 am, Niteesh G. S. wrote: > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 04:28:37 +1100 > From: Chris Johns mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> > To: devel@rtems.org > Subject: Re: [patch libBSD] dev/ofw: Use RTEMS OFW FDT implementation > Message-ID:

Re: Buildbot failure in RTEMS on CHECK sparc/erc32 FreeBSD 10.1-STABLE GCC 7.3.0 POSIX

Hello, On 28/01/2021 06:37, build...@rtems.org wrote: The Buildbot has detected a failed build on builder CHECK sparc/erc32 FreeBSD 10.1-STABLE GCC 7.3.0 POSIX while building rtems. Full details are available at: https://buildbot.rtems.org/#builders/20/builds/440 Buildbot URL: https://bui

Re: Buildbot failure in RTEMS on CHECK sparc/erc32 FreeBSD 10.1-STABLE GCC 7.3.0 POSIX

On 28/1/21 4:44 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Hello, > > On 28/01/2021 06:37, build...@rtems.org wrote: >> The Buildbot has detected a failed build on builder CHECK sparc/erc32 FreeBSD >> 10.1-STABLE GCC 7.3.0 POSIX while building rtems. >> Full details are available at: >> https://buildbot.rt

Re: [patch libBSD] dev/ofw: Use RTEMS OFW FDT implementation

Am 28.01.21 um 06:28 schrieb Chris Johns: On 28/1/21 4:12 am, Niteesh G. S. wrote: Hello Christian, On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 3:59 PM Christian MAUDERER mailto:christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: Hello Niteesh, I think there is an open Question from Chris for that patch: