On 06/05/2014 04:54 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
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.
I'm fine with removing them. I'm not sure why it was originally this way, there
was probably some reason for it in the first place.
I'll add a patch for that.
Thanks,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
