On 5/19/2023 10:25 AM, Lwazi Dube wrote:
Alan,
Can you summarize? I have not been following this PR. Is make going away?
Thanks,
-Lwazi
On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 11:47, Alan C. Assis wrote:
Hi Everyone,
While PR #6718 is waiting to get merged, please take a look:
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 2:24 PM Milan Obuch wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I started testing NuttX on Raspberry Pi Pico board, using FreeBSD as
> host for building. I was able to build NuttX using all configuration
> files for this board (but one - nshsram, it does not finish, but I
> don't care about it for
On 5/19/23, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 8:24 AM Milan Obuch wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I started testing NuttX on Raspberry Pi Pico board, using FreeBSD as
>> host for building. I was able to build NuttX using all configuration
>> files for this board (but one - nshsram, it does
Hi Everyone,
While PR #6718 is waiting to get merged, please take a look:
https://makefiletutorial.com
BR,
Alan
Alan,
Can you summarize? I have not been following this PR. Is make going away?
Thanks,
-Lwazi
On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 11:47, Alan C. Assis wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> While PR #6718 is waiting to get merged, please take a look:
>
> https://makefiletutorial.com
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
Hi,
I started testing NuttX on Raspberry Pi Pico board, using FreeBSD as
host for building. I was able to build NuttX using all configuration
files for this board (but one - nshsram, it does not finish, but I
don't care about it for now). All those configurations use default UART
placement (pins
Yes, it worked before, but a long time ago. I tested this on both on arm
(stm32f7) and risc-v (mpfs) platforms.
I tracked the problem down to this patch:
commit 19758788356f8623bac5f439419e231ff81cac14
Author: Huang Qi
Date: Mon Apr 11 18:42:24 2022 +0800
arch/risc-v: Apply common mtime
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 8:24 AM Milan Obuch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I started testing NuttX on Raspberry Pi Pico board, using FreeBSD as
> host for building. I was able to build NuttX using all configuration
> files for this board (but one - nshsram, it does not finish, but I
> don't care about it for
On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 13:51, Alan C. Assis wrote:
>
> Lwazi, I think Greg summarized it well.
>
Yes, and Maciej too. Thanks
I am thinking about this. "If it works don't fix it" comes to my mind.
Current build system is amazingly simple coherent and fast. Building
firmware takes 17 seconds. Why change it?
Such change will flip everything upside down. Adds lots of work and
even more possible problems.
What would be
On Fri, May 19, 2023, 3:23 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> I am thinking about this. "If it works don't fix it" comes to my mind.
>
> Current build system is amazingly simple coherent and fast. Building
> firmware takes 17 seconds. Why change it?
>
> Such change will flip everything upside down. Adds
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 7:17 PM Xiang Xiao wrote:
> The change doesn't replace Makefile with CMake, both can work. So I would
> suggest the vote is "Enable CMake support".
Isn't the goal of CMake to generate Makefiles?
What is the chance of keeping both makefiles and cmakefiles out of sync?
On 5/19/23, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> On 5/19/2023 10:25 AM, Lwazi Dube wrote:
>> Alan,
>>
>> Can you summarize? I have not been following this PR. Is make going away?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Lwazi
>>
>> On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 11:47, Alan C. Assis wrote:
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> While PR #6718 is
I see the following advantages of having CMake:
- Everything is way more readable then the current Make files.
- Easier on-boarding.
- Less build-related bugs.
- Less boiler-plate code.
- Faster builds.
- Great IDE integration.
Adding CMake as an optional feature seems to be a great solution.
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 8:10 PM Gregory Nutt wrote:
> > Such a big change needs good description.. risks.. clear list of
> > advantages and disadvantages :-)
>
> And if it comes down to switching from one to the other as you suggest,
> then it needs a vote to understand the will of the whole
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:53 PM Gregory Nutt wrote:
> On 5/19/2023 10:25 AM, Lwazi Dube wrote:
> > Alan,
> >
> > Can you summarize? I have not been following this PR. Is make going away?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Lwazi
> >
> > On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 11:47, Alan C. Assis wrote:
> >> Hi Everyone,
The change doesn't replace Makefile with CMake, both can work. So I would
suggest the vote is "Enable CMake support".
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 12:53 AM Gregory Nutt wrote:
> On 5/19/2023 10:25 AM, Lwazi Dube wrote:
> > Alan,
> >
> > Can you summarize? I have not been following this PR. Is make
Such a big change needs good description.. risks.. clear list of
advantages and disadvantages :-)
And if it comes down to switching from one to the other as you suggest,
then it needs a vote to understand the will of the whole community, not
the preference of a few. The whole community
On 5/19/2023 12:11 PM, Lwazi Dube wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 13:51, Alan C. Assis wrote:
Lwazi, I think Greg summarized it well.
Yes, and Maciej too. Thanks
But we need to get away from statements of fears and marketing
statements to understand the clear, real world impacts.
19 matches
Mail list logo
