On 03/11/2022 06:40, padmarao.beg...@microchip.com wrote:
On Wed, 2022-11-02 at 09:58 -0600, Gedare Bloom wrote:
t0 contains the address of .Lsecondary_processor_go
start.S has:
```asm
#if __riscv_xlen == 32
.align 2
#elif __riscv_xlen == 64
.align 3
#endif
.Lsecondary_processor_go:
``
On 02/11/2022 08:10, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
Am 01.11.22 um 22:08 schrieb Chris Johns:
On 2/11/2022 3:25 am, o...@c-mauderer.de wrote:> Is it a good idea to
make it a
mandatory attribute? It makes the yaml files
bigger. It will only mean that we have to look for copy and paste
bugs instead
On 31/10/2022 20:01, Gedare Bloom wrote:
I would like to float the idea of managing 3rd party source tracking
through the build system spec files. I believe this would be the most
efficient way to maintain this information, and we can leverage the
existing build system code for tasks such as auto
Hi Sebastian,
> On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 08:07 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
> On 03/11/2022 06:40, padmarao.beg...@microchip.com wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-11-02 at 09:58 -0600, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > >
> > > t0 contains the address of .Lsecondary_processor_go
> > >
> > > start.S has:
> > > ```
On 04/11/2022 10:44, padmarao.beg...@microchip.com wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 08:07 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 03/11/2022 06:40,padmarao.beg...@microchip.com wrote:
On Wed, 2022-11-02 at 09:58 -0600, Gedare Bloom wrote:
t0 contains the address of .Lsecondary_processor_
On 04/11/2022 10:49, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 04/11/2022 10:44, padmarao.beg...@microchip.com wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 08:07 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 03/11/2022 06:40,padmarao.beg...@microchip.com wrote:
On Wed, 2022-11-02 at 09:58 -0600, Gedare Bloom wrote:
t0 c
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:59 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2022 20:01, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > I would like to float the idea of managing 3rd party source tracking
> > through the build system spec files. I believe this would be the most
> > efficient way to maintain this information, and
On 04/11/2022 15:38, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:59 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
On 31/10/2022 20:01, Gedare Bloom wrote:
I would like to float the idea of managing 3rd party source tracking
through the build system spec files. I believe this would be the most
efficient way to m
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 8:58 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 04/11/2022 15:38, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:59 AM Sebastian Huber
> > wrote:
> >> On 31/10/2022 20:01, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >>> I would like to float the idea of managing 3rd party source tracking
> >>> through
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 8:58 AM Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 9:46 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:35 PM Ryan Long wrote:
>> >
>> > This is the set of files in the source code that are all third party.
>> > This means they should not be re-licensed o
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 9:55 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 8:58 AM Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/11/2022 15:38, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:59 AM Sebastian Huber
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 31/10/2022 20:01, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > >>> I would like
Hi all,
I don't see an entry in spec/build anywhere for xz_crc64.c
>From what I can tell it is not compiled/tested. I guess the
This leads me to believe it is not compiled. And therefore is not
being called or tested anywhere.
Should it be compiled, or should it be removed?
Gedare
_
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 2:37 PM Gedare Bloom wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I don't see an entry in spec/build anywhere for xz_crc64.c
>
> From what I can tell it is not compiled/tested. I guess the
> This leads me to believe it is not compiled. And therefore is not
> being called or tested anywhere.
>
> Shou
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:39 PM Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 2:37 PM Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I don't see an entry in spec/build anywhere for xz_crc64.c
>>
>> From what I can tell it is not compiled/tested. I guess the
>> This leads me to believe it is not compi
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 11:00 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 9:55 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 8:58 AM Sebastian Huber
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 04/11/2022 15:38, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:59 AM Sebastian Huber
> > > > wrote
---
wscript | 305 ++--
1 file changed, 139 insertions(+), 166 deletions(-)
diff --git a/wscript b/wscript
index 4071cc9ef8..6bf3b25012 100755
--- a/wscript
+++ b/wscript
@@ -73,13 +73,10 @@ class VersionControlKeyHeader:
#define _RTEMS_VERSION
This is just the result of running
yapf -i wscript
on the master branch.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:23 PM Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> ---
> wscript | 305 ++--
> 1 file changed, 139 insertions(+), 166 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/wscript b/wscript
>
Out of the original list, the following are the files that have NOT
been marked as third-party in my proof-of-concept available at
https://git.rtems.org/gedare/rtems.git/log/?h=test-split-3rd-party
Most of the .h files are not included because uninstalled headers
aren't in the spec files. This inc
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 5:01 PM Gedare Bloom wrote:
> Out of the original list, the following are the files that have NOT
> been marked as third-party in my proof-of-concept available at
> https://git.rtems.org/gedare/rtems.git/log/?h=test-split-3rd-party
>
> Most of the .h files are not included
On 5/11/2022 4:00 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
Given the complexity of this tagging, I'm going to start with just the
true/false approach to categorize third-party sources. We can do
something like the above in the future.
Sounds good. We can consider a dict when someone maps out how to manage
3rd
On 5/11/2022 6:46 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:39 PM Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 2:37 PM Gedare Bloom wrote:
Hi all,
I don't see an entry in spec/build anywhere for xz_crc64.c
From what I can tell it is not compiled/tested. I guess the
This leads me to
21 matches
Mail list logo
