On 5/5/21 4:58 pm, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 5/5/21 4:52 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> In POSIX, zero size memory allocations are implementation-defined
>> behaviour. The implementation has two options:
>>
>> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/malloc.html
>>
>> https://pubs.o
On 05/05/2021 09:00, Chris Johns wrote:
On 5/5/21 4:58 pm, Chris Johns wrote:
On 5/5/21 4:52 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
In POSIX, zero size memory allocations are implementation-defined
behaviour. The implementation has two options:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/m
Check for a NULL processor set pointer.
---
cpukit/rtems/src/scheduleridentbyprocessorset.c | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/cpukit/rtems/src/scheduleridentbyprocessorset.c
b/cpukit/rtems/src/scheduleridentbyprocessorset.c
index 3d48bfba3e..8d55d470f5 100644
--- a/cpukit/rt
In case the processor set is not large enough to contain the processor
set owned by the scheduler return RTEMS_INVALID_SIZE instead of
RTEMS_INVALID_NUMBER. This is more in line with other directives since
the issue is related to the size of an object.
Close #4401.
---
cpukit/rtems/src/schedulerg
The ordering of keys cannot be guaranteed in a dictionary. This changes
the options dictionary to an OrderedDict to preserve key order. This
also fixes the iteration start point in add_arguments.
Closes #4402
---
rtemstoolkit/mailer.py | 24 +---
1 file changed, 13 insertions(
alright looks good. Vijay or Christian please confirm and push if
you're good with it too.
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 12:52 AM Niteesh G. S. wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:23 PM Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>> Hi Niteesh,
>>
>> This looks good to me. What/how did you test it?
>
> I tested it usi
Why?
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 8:08 AM Alex White wrote:
>
> The ordering of keys cannot be guaranteed in a dictionary. This changes
> the options dictionary to an OrderedDict to preserve key order. This
> also fixes the iteration start point in add_arguments.
>
> Closes #4402
> ---
> rtemstoolkit/
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 1:19 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 05/05/2021 09:00, Chris Johns wrote:
> > On 5/5/21 4:58 pm, Chris Johns wrote:
> >> On 5/5/21 4:52 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >>> In POSIX, zero size memory allocations are implementation-defined
> >>> behaviour. The implementation ha
ok, this is also consistent with rtems_scheduler_ident_by_processor_set()
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:27 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> In case the processor set is not large enough to contain the processor
> set owned by the scheduler return RTEMS_INVALID_SIZE instead of
> RTEMS_INVALID_NUMBER. This
ok
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 5:28 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> Check for a NULL processor set pointer.
> ---
> cpukit/rtems/src/scheduleridentbyprocessorset.c | 4
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/cpukit/rtems/src/scheduleridentbyprocessorset.c
> b/cpukit/rtems/src/schedule
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 9:48 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 1:19 AM Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/05/2021 09:00, Chris Johns wrote:
> > > On 5/5/21 4:58 pm, Chris Johns wrote:
> > >> On 5/5/21 4:52 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > >>> In POSIX, zero size memory allocations
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 9:47 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> Why?
To prevent the '--mail' and '--use-gitconfig' options from being added more
than once to the ArgumentParser in add_arguments.
Alex
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 8:08 AM Alex White wrote:
> >
> > The ordering of keys cannot be guaranteed
Reply is below.
-Original Message-
From: Gedare Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:27 AM
To: Ryan Long
Cc: Sebastian Huber ; devel@rtems.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] libcsupport: Added futimens() and utimensat()
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 10:04 AM Ryan Long wrote:
>
>
>
> -Origina
- Parsing the sub-node should be available generic not specific to Freedom
Arty310 board. If we remove the Freedom Arty macro now, it will lose
backward compatibility.The proposed change will retain the backward
compatibility and also adds the necessary fix for parsing sub-node.
---
bsps/ris
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 9:16 AM Alex White wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 9:47 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >
> > Why?
>
> To prevent the '--mail' and '--use-gitconfig' options from being added more
> than once to the ArgumentParser in add_arguments.
>
How does that happen?
I'm not trying to be f
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:03 AM Ryan Long wrote:
>
> Reply is below.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gedare Bloom
> Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:27 AM
> To: Ryan Long
> Cc: Sebastian Huber ; devel@rtems.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] libcsupport: Added futimens() and utimensat()
>
> O
Hello everyone,
Regarding this project (https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3860) I went with
clang-format as we all agreed. I have tested it on some "score" files and
it made some changes which I don't think are very much in line with the
RTEMS coding style. However, it wasn't really clear if we will
From: Harrison
---
user/bld/index.rst | 7 ---
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/user/bld/index.rst b/user/bld/index.rst
index ebedf5a..411b3a2 100644
--- a/user/bld/index.rst
+++ b/user/bld/index.rst
@@ -309,10 +309,6 @@ in the configuration file.
Set ``RTEMS_MULTIPROCES
---
posix-compliance/posix_rst.py | 36 ++--
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/posix-compliance/posix_rst.py b/posix-compliance/posix_rst.py
index 6e3b41c..c50fd4a 100755
--- a/posix-compliance/posix_rst.py
+++ b/posix-compliance/posix_
Hi
This was too large to send through uncompressed so I am attaching it.
Gedare's idea of not renaming the CSV to bump the version was good. But
this change adds a new column for POSIX 1003.1-2017 (Issue 7). That's the
worst case for patch size.
bzip dropped it from 300+k to 16k so that's accepta
Hi Harrison,
The patch looks good, just a little change is required. You'll notice
that we follow a pattern in our commit messages. First, write the name
of the file changed, then a short description of the change and then,
if applicable, a longer description in the commit message.
This message co
Hi all,
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 8:42 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> alright looks good. Vijay or Christian please confirm and push if
> you're good with it too.
>
ofw01.exe breaks after this patch. This probably needs some more debugging.
If it helps, I'm pasting the error:
```
*** FATAL ***
fatal so
On 6/5/21 4:49 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 9:16 AM Alex White wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 9:47 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> To prevent the '--mail' and '--use-gitconfig' options from being added more
>> than once to the ArgumentParser in add_arguments.
>
hi Ida,
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:21 PM Ida Delphine wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Regarding this project (https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3860) I went with
> clang-format as we all agreed. I have tested it on some "score" files and it
> made some changes which I don't think are very much in lin
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:12 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote:
>
> Hi Harrison,
>
> The patch looks good, just a little change is required. You'll notice
> that we follow a pattern in our commit messages. First, write the name
> of the file changed, then a short description of the change and then,
> i
Thanks Joel. Is this patch 2/2? Go ahead.
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:36 PM Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> This was too large to send through uncompressed so I am attaching it.
> Gedare's idea of not renaming the CSV to bump the version was good. But this
> change adds a new column for POSIX 100
26 matches
Mail list logo
