I wonder if we could automate that? Instead of separate debug vs
production configurations, could not configure.sh/c just create a debug
configuration by disabling optimization, enabling symbols, enabling
debug features, assertions, basic error and warning output?
Of course specialize configurations like a networking configure would
need more (like network debug), but changes like that to configure.sh/c
would get you 90% there.
On 11/23/2020 7:29 AM, David Sidrane wrote:
Perfect! Let's do this as time permits.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Carvalho de Assis [mailto:acas...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:09 AM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: Re: Should TASK_NAME_SIZE be changed in most configs?
Yes, I think nsh-debug will make its intention clear.
On 11/23/20, Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote:
It has always been the policy to disable debug features in all shipped
configurations. They were considered production configurations not
debug configurations.
Configurations that have debug enable could, perhaps, be named like
nsh-debug.
On 11/23/2020 5:38 AM, Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote:
I think we need to have a good compromise between features and size.
For instance, the default "nsh" demo should be small, basically just
the terminal and minimum support to its commands to work, like the
PROCFS to get 'free' working.
Also keep in mind that for debugging purpose we need to "Suppress
Optimization" that also will increase its size.
So, I think it could be a good idea to have a predefined config for
debug purpose, instead forcing the "nsh" to be debugging enabled ready
by default, that will increase its size and send a wrong message for
people testing NuttX for the very first time.
See the mbedOS for example:
https://os.mbed.com/blog/entry/Optimizing-memory-usage-in-mbed-OS-52/
They went into 'rabbit's hole' to solve an issue that we don't have
yet, but if nobody keep an eye on it soon we will have.
BR,
Alan
On 11/23/20, David Sidrane <david.sidr...@nscdg.com> wrote:
Do you think this is due to the....
I would say so.
I agree better debugging out of the box is a good way to go. We have to
weigh that against the past goal of: Minimum size image. It was a first
impression thing. This was why debug had to be tuned off in all Kconfig.
The first question to ask is do we as a group feel still that the size
of
the canned config built images should be as small as possible to
showcase
NuttX ability to be small?
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Matias N. [mailto:mat...@imap.cc]
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 5:18 PM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: Should TASK_NAME_SIZE be changed in most configs?
While trying the integration of openocd with NuttX it was complaining
due
to "name" not being defined, which happens when CONFIG_TASK_NAME_SIZE ==
0. Looking at sched/Kconfig the default for this symbol is 31, yet many
configs have this set to zero. Do you think this is due to the default
having changed at some point or is this done to minimize memory use in
all
these boards? If the latter, maybe we need to make the default depend on
CONFIG_DEFAULT_SMALL and update all configs that do not have this set.
Best,
Matias
