On 2014-06-04 20:48, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
On 06/04/2014 11:51 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 2014-06-04 11:23, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
Instead of calling the system call TA instruction directly it
is better paractise to isolate the trap implementation to the
system call functions.
The BSP_fatal_return() should always exist, regardless of SPARC
CPU.
Why do we need BSP_fatal_return() and bsp_reset()?
The LEON3 doesn't, it does not define bsp_reset. I tried to preserve the
behaviour of LEON2 and ERC32 BSPs, the bsp_reset is called from the fatal
handler. On all SPARC BSPs, ending up in BSP_fatal_return is a result of
bootcard or bsp_start_on_secondary_processor returning which they should never
do. The two functions also have different error exit codes.
Ok, so this BSP_fatal_return() is used to mark unreachable code. Maybe we
should just remove these two special cases since its impossible to test this
code or we could also add a general _Unreachable_code() function.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
_______________________________________________
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
