Re: [PATCH] fixincludes: vxworks: regs.h: Guard include of vxTypesOld.h by !_ASMLANGUAGE

2018-10-08 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On 2018-09-14 14:39, Olivier Hainque wrote: > > >> On 13 Sep 2018, at 00:25, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > >>> What happens on your end if you just remove the hack ? > >> Unfortunately, the libstdc++ build breaks: >> >> In file included from >> /usr/powerpc-wrs-vxworks/wind_base/target/h/regs.h:66

Re: [PATCH] fixincludes: vxworks: regs.h: Guard include of vxTypesOld.h by !_ASMLANGUAGE

2018-09-14 Thread Olivier Hainque
> On 13 Sep 2018, at 00:25, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> What happens on your end if you just remove the hack ? > Unfortunately, the libstdc++ build breaks: > > In file included from > /usr/powerpc-wrs-vxworks/wind_base/target/h/regs.h:66:0, > from > /bld/vestas/auto/work.20180

Re: [PATCH] fixincludes: vxworks: regs.h: Guard include of vxTypesOld.h by !_ASMLANGUAGE

2018-09-12 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On 2018-09-05 11:38, Olivier Hainque wrote: > Hi Rasmus, > > I think we should either do a fixinclude that would "work" for > C and ASM (like #include vxCpu for ASM, vxTypesOld otherwise), or > simply remove this hack (just using the fixinclude parlance here). > > My inclination would be for the

Re: [PATCH] fixincludes: vxworks: regs.h: Guard include of vxTypesOld.h by !_ASMLANGUAGE

2018-09-05 Thread Olivier Hainque
Hi Rasmus, > On 3 Sep 2018, at 15:20, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> How do we not get in assembly the problems we'd get in C >> when not including vxTypesOld ? Answering part of my own question: turns out that some pieces included via regs.h are already taking care of the _ASMLANGUAGE case. > Wel

Re: [PATCH] fixincludes: vxworks: remove unnecessary parentheses in ioctl wrapper macro

2018-09-03 Thread Olivier Hainque
> On 3 Sep 2018, at 17:25, Bruce Korb wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 2:46 AM Olivier Hainque wrote: >>> -"#define ioctl(fd, func, arg) (ioctl)(fd, func, (int)(arg))\n"; >>> +"#define ioctl(fd, func, arg) ioctl(fd, func, (int)(arg))\n"; >> >> ok by me, thanks. > > Shouldn'

Re: [PATCH] fixincludes: vxworks: remove unnecessary parentheses in ioctl wrapper macro

2018-09-03 Thread Bruce Korb
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 2:46 AM Olivier Hainque wrote: > > -"#define ioctl(fd, func, arg) (ioctl)(fd, func, (int)(arg))\n"; > > +"#define ioctl(fd, func, arg) ioctl(fd, func, (int)(arg))\n"; > > ok by me, thanks. Shouldn't this qualify as "trivial"? :)

Re: [PATCH] fixincludes: vxworks: regs.h: Guard include of vxTypesOld.h by !_ASMLANGUAGE

2018-09-03 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On 2018-09-03 14:11, Olivier Hainque wrote: > Hi Rasmus, > >> On 27 Jun 2018, at 16:27, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> * inclhack.def (AAB_vxworks_regs_vxtypes): Guard include of >> types/vxTypesOld.h by #ifndef _ASMLANGUAGE. >> * fixincl.x: Regenerate. >> --- >> fixincludes/inclhack.d

Re: [PATCH] fixincludes: vxworks: regs.h: Guard include of vxTypesOld.h by !_ASMLANGUAGE

2018-09-03 Thread Olivier Hainque
Hi Rasmus, > On 27 Jun 2018, at 16:27, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > * inclhack.def (AAB_vxworks_regs_vxtypes): Guard include of > types/vxTypesOld.h by #ifndef _ASMLANGUAGE. > * fixincl.x: Regenerate. > --- > fixincludes/inclhack.def | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > di

Re: [PATCH] fixincludes: vxworks: remove unnecessary parentheses in ioctl wrapper macro

2018-09-03 Thread Olivier Hainque
Hi Rasmus, > On 29 Jun 2018, at 11:47, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > -"#define ioctl(fd, func, arg) (ioctl)(fd, func, (int)(arg))\n"; > +"#define ioctl(fd, func, arg) ioctl(fd, func, (int)(arg))\n"; ok by me, thanks.

Re: [PATCH] Fixincludes/VxWorks

2012-06-11 Thread rbmj
On 06/10/2012 02:38 PM, Bruce Korb wrote: On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 06/06/12 17:33, rbmj wrote: Hi everyone, This patch series is the result of this [1] thread about fixincludes on VxWorks. It resolves bugs 53457 and 53378, and a few other issues that previous

Re: [PATCH] Fixincludes/VxWorks

2012-06-10 Thread Bruce Korb
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 06/06/12 17:33, rbmj wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> This patch series is the result of this [1] thread about fixincludes on >> VxWorks. >> It resolves bugs 53457 and 53378, and a few other issues that previously >> required manual inter

Re: [PATCH] Fixincludes/VxWorks

2012-06-10 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 06/06/12 17:33, rbmj wrote: Hi everyone, This patch series is the result of this [1] thread about fixincludes on VxWorks. It resolves bugs 53457 and 53378, and a few other issues that previously required manual intervention to fix for VxWorks header files. From a vxworks POV these all look

Re: [PATCH] Fixincludes/VxWorks

2012-06-06 Thread rbmj
On 06/06/2012 01:11 PM, Bruce Korb wrote: On 06/06/12 09:33, rbmj wrote: Hi everyone, OK, I'm slow. I just woke up from a late night. "test -r vxWorks.h" is the mechanism to ensure that tests only fire on a vxworks platform. Seems a bit obscure, but if it is easier than other mechanisms, the

Re: [PATCH] Fixincludes/VxWorks

2012-06-06 Thread Bruce Korb
On 06/06/12 09:33, rbmj wrote: Hi everyone, OK, I'm slow. I just woke up from a late night. "test -r vxWorks.h" is the mechanism to ensure that tests only fire on a vxworks platform. Seems a bit obscure, but if it is easier than other mechanisms, then fine. I do think a "mach" test would be

Re: [PATCH] Fixincludes/VxWorks

2012-06-06 Thread Bruce Korb
Please read README and look to inclhack.def for examples approximating the kind of testing you are interested in doing. "test -r vxWorks.h" is a pointless test if you configure the fix to apply only to a file named vxWorks.h. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM, rbmj wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This pat