On 6/11/2015 7:31 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 06/11/15 15:12, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: >>> >I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development >>> >cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation >>> >this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google Code-In, >>> >and bumping the tool versions could be a set of tasks. If you would >>> >like to do one or a few as a sample, then we can have high school >>> >students do the rest during the GCI program period. >> I am planing to talk to Joel about the RSB and it's configuration files. >> The RSB has arrived at an interesting place where I am not sure we want >> all versions in an RSB. If we strip back the configurations to just the >> valid ones we will then need to have a specific versions for specific >> releases. This would simplify the number of files. > > What I noticed during creation of the 4.12 tools that a lot of includes > are involved which make it difficult to determine what is actually the > case. I would use more copy and paste, otherwise if you change e.g. the > basic GCC build file, then you would have to build a lot of stuff to > test everything. I think its better to use specific files for a specific > RTEMS version.
The original idea was to up the last number of the base file if the changes broke a previous version. I do not know how well this works so I am wondering about just removing them and then have a release branch that tracks an RTEMS release branch. > >> >> It would be nice to resolve this before adding 4.12 support. > > The 4.11 branch was created more than three months ago, we should really > provide a 4.12 tool chain soon and independent of RSB internal issues. > Yes. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel