[PATCH v3] eng: Add Python development guidelines

--- v3: * Use "preferred" instead of "main" language. v2: * Fix grammar * Recommend pytest instead of unittest eng/management.rst | 1 + eng/python-devel.rst | 163 +++ 2 files changed, 164 insertions(+) create mode 100644

Re: [PATCH v2] eng: Add Python development guidelines

On 18/03/2020 06:28, Chris Johns wrote: Build System Any need to have something about the build system to be used to wrap a project? There is waf as used in rtems-tools and then are are Python packaging systems. Should this be covered? Yes, this should be covered, but I would

Re: What sanitizers preferred?

AddressSanitizer is supported on Android ARM ThreadSanitizer supported on x86_64 Memory sanitizer and UBsan not on the ones you mentioned but on freeBSD DataFlowSanitizer is under development for x86_64 Linux But they use virtual memory. On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:25 PM Joel Sherrill wrote:

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Add support for building with Clang/LLVM

On 18/03/2020 06:10, Chris Johns wrote: On 17/3/20 4:50 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 17/03/2020 03:09, Chris Johns wrote: That follows the rtems/waf (new build system) convention by default. Do you mean the work Sebastian is doing? If you are, it currently might but that work is not

GSoC 2020 memory protection project initial draft.

Hi, I have prepared my initial draft for the project and look forward to your feedback on the same. I have also added this to the GSoC tracking page. GSOC2020_ Rai_Memory_Protection

Re: What sanitizers preferred?

Yes it uses virtual memory. I confirmed from a LLVM sanitizer contributor. On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 9:35 PM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 15/03/2020 17:52, suyash singh wrote: > > Hello, > Out of > AddressSanitizer

Re: [PATCH v2] eng: Add Python development guidelines

On 18/3/20 7:50 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: > --- > v2: > > * Fix grammar > * Recommend pytest instead of unittest > > eng/management.rst | 1 + > eng/python-devel.rst | 163 > +++ > 2 files changed, 164 insertions(+) > create mode 100644

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a message to run 'pytest' to run rest of test suite.

On 18/3/20 4:59 am, Amar Takhar wrote: > On 2020-03-17 15:21 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >> It seems that pytest recommends monkeypatch: >> >> https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/monkeypatch.html >> > > Yes, also I use this: > > https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest-mock > > Plugins are

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a message to run 'pytest' to run rest of test suite.

On 17/3/20 5:23 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 17/03/2020 01:05, Amar Takhar wrote: > >> On 2020-03-17 10:55 +1100, Chris Johns wrote: >>> On 17/3/20 7:21 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: Chris, what do you think about using pytest in favour of the standard Python unitttest? >>> I am

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Add support for building with Clang/LLVM

On 17/3/20 4:50 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 17/03/2020 03:09, Chris Johns wrote: > >>> That follows the rtems/waf (new build system) convention by default. >> Do you mean the work Sebastian is doing? If you are, it currently might but >> that >> work is not finished and it may change,

Re: [rtems-examples PATCH 2/2] Replace deprecated CONFIGURE_LIBIO_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS with CONFIGURE_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS

On 18/3/20 12:06 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > I should have said that I am OK with this patch and if the examples build with > the the waf patch to the examples build system, I'm OK with that also. The patch needs to have an updated rtems_waf to pull in the env var check I just pushed. > I am not

Re: [rtems_waf PATCH] rtems: Allow checking multiple environment variable

Hi, Nice change, I have pushed this. Chris On 17/3/20 8:52 pm, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > --- > rtems.py | 9 + > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/rtems.py b/rtems.py > index 6dd71b1..ceabcd9 100644 > --- a/rtems.py > +++ b/rtems.py > @@ -479,10

Re: Improve the Raspberry Pi BSP

On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 10:20 PM Denil Verghese wrote: > Hi, >I would like to know whether the projects shown in this > https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2899 ticket is completed or not. If the > ideas are yet to implement I could work on it. > I think there is plenty left. I am not

Regarding my proposal.

Hi, I have been closely watching the mailing list as well as my proposal for any suggestions of any kind but, so far I received none. Is there anything that I can do to improve my proposal so that it benefits the community. As mentioned in the RTEMS GSoC page repeated review gives more

Too Build Failures on Various Hosts

Hi I haven't made a master list but it seems as though a number of target architectures seem to have issues on different hosts. Do we have a master list to attempt to burn down? I know Chris mentioned moving some targets back a bit on gdb (I think) to move past this quickly. What's the set is

Re: [PATCH] Improve Python 3 compatibility misc directory

Refer https://docs.python.org/3.1/whatsnew/3.0.html On Wed, 18 Mar, 2020, 02:22 Anmol mishra, wrote: > From: Anmol Mishra > > --- > misc/tools/boot.py | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/misc/tools/boot.py b/misc/tools/boot.py > index 265d1b3..78e43bc

[PATCH] Improve Python 3 compatibility misc directory

From: Anmol Mishra --- misc/tools/boot.py | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/misc/tools/boot.py b/misc/tools/boot.py index 265d1b3..78e43bc 100644 --- a/misc/tools/boot.py +++ b/misc/tools/boot.py @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ class bootloader(object):

[PATCH v2] eng: Add Python development guidelines

--- v2: * Fix grammar * Recommend pytest instead of unittest eng/management.rst | 1 + eng/python-devel.rst | 163 +++ 2 files changed, 164 insertions(+) create mode 100644 eng/python-devel.rst diff --git a/eng/management.rst

[PATCH] user/gsoc: GSoC Getting Started Instructions

--- user/index.rst | 1 + user/start/gsoc.rst | 453 +++ user/start/index.rst | 1 + 3 files changed, 455 insertions(+) create mode 100644 user/start/gsoc.rst diff --git a/user/index.rst b/user/index.rst index 0e644c9..f253ea6 100644 ---

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a message to run 'pytest' to run rest of test suite.

On 2020-03-17 15:20 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > Ok, what would be a recommendation for the guidelines? Something like this: > > Place tests for a module in a directory. Use individual test files for tests > related to a particular class or functionality, e.g. module/test_xyz.py. > > OR >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a message to run 'pytest' to run rest of test suite.

On 2020-03-17 15:21 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > It seems that pytest recommends monkeypatch: > > https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/monkeypatch.html > Yes, also I use this: https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest-mock Plugins are extremely easy to use in pytest and are usually comprised

Fwd: GSoC Announcement: GSoC 2020 Student applications are now open (until March 31 at 1800 UTC)

Hi This should be passed along to any students interested. Also they need to do our hello world task and work on their application. --joel -- Forwarded message - From: Google Summer of Code Announce < google-summer-of-code-annou...@googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at

Re: Documentation of the Configuration Options

Hello, I added the configuration groups and options as specification items: https://git.rtems.org/sebh/rtems-qual.git/tree/spec/acfg/opt I can generate the latest documentation sources one-to-one from the specification with this module:

Re: RTEMS Docs: Adding GSoC Getting Started Instructions

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 2:12 AM Niteesh G. S. wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 2:28 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:56 PM Niteesh G. S. wrote: >> > >> > I am interested in taking up #3907. I'll mostly be copying and updating >> > the contents from the old wiki site.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a message to run 'pytest' to run rest of test suite.

On 17/03/2020 06:54, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 16/03/2020 20:26, Amar Takhar wrote: I should have also added some of my own reasons why pytest is better for writing tests in Python:    - Fantastic exception handling makes it far easier to debug test and code. PDB works seamlessly.   

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a message to run 'pytest' to run rest of test suite.

On 17/03/2020 13:55, Amar Takhar wrote: On 2020-03-17 06:52 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote: So you would not use test classes to group tests for a specific class? No I would not typically grouping tests involves keeping them in separate files. You gain no advantage to keeping them all in one

Re: Description of rtems-libbsd testsuite applications

Hello Sebastian, I followed your recommendations regarding rtems_test_begin(), rtems_test_end() and RTEMS_TEST_STATE_USER_INPUT. Now I'm working on getting running the rtems-libbsd testsuit with RTEMS Tester. I would like to ask you 2 questions: 1. About arphole: In the arp_processor()

Re: [rtems-examples PATCH 2/2] Replace deprecated CONFIGURE_LIBIO_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS with CONFIGURE_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS

I should have said that I am OK with this patch and if the examples build with the the waf patch to the examples build system, I'm OK with that also. I am not comfortable reviewing the patch to the rtems waf infrastructure. Sebastian, if you can push these, it would be appreciated. I'm about to

Re: [rtems-examples PATCH 2/2] Replace deprecated CONFIGURE_LIBIO_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS with CONFIGURE_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS

The examples are released with each RTEMS version. The examples master should track RTEMS master. https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/releases/5/5.0.0/5.0.0-m2003/ includes a mated rtems-examples. --joel On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 5:11 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee < vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a message to run 'pytest' to run rest of test suite.

On 2020-03-17 06:52 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote: > So you would not use test classes to group tests for a specific class? No I would not typically grouping tests involves keeping them in separate files. You gain no advantage to keeping them all in one large file. You can also use directory

Re: [PATCH] Improve Python 3 compatibility

Thanks, please push. On 17/3/20 6:34 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > --- > tester/rt/check.py | 2 +- > wscript| 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tester/rt/check.py b/tester/rt/check.py > index c7f6c23..2a38d99 100755 > --- a/tester/rt/check.py

Re: [rtems-examples PATCH 2/2] Replace deprecated CONFIGURE_LIBIO_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS with CONFIGURE_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:25 PM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > Should the examples also work with RTEMS 4.10 or 4.11? > > That's a good point. Should we sort out the examples that are not expected to work on 4.10 and 4.11 (like lvgl example) and do this change only

Re: [rtems-examples PATCH 2/2] Replace deprecated CONFIGURE_LIBIO_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS with CONFIGURE_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS

Should the examples also work with RTEMS 4.10 or 4.11? ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[rtems-examples PATCH 2/2] Replace deprecated CONFIGURE_LIBIO_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS with CONFIGURE_MAXIMUM_FILE_DESCRIPTORS

--- benchmarks/nbench/main.c| 2 +- c11/c11_cndvar01/rtems_config.c | 2 +- c11/c11_key01/rtems_config.c| 2 +- c11/c11_mutex01/rtems_config.c | 2 +- c11/c11_thread01/rtems_config.c | 2 +- file_io/crc/init.c | 2 +- file_io/fdopen/README | 2 +-

[rtems-examples PATCH 1/2] filesystem: Add checks for rtems-bin2c

--- file_io/crc/wscript| 23 --- filesystem/fat_ramdisk/wscript | 18 +- 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/file_io/crc/wscript b/file_io/crc/wscript index 531da20..45384a9 100644 --- a/file_io/crc/wscript +++

[rtems_waf PATCH] rtems: Allow checking multiple environment variable

--- rtems.py | 9 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/rtems.py b/rtems.py index 6dd71b1..ceabcd9 100644 --- a/rtems.py +++ b/rtems.py @@ -479,10 +479,11 @@ def check_options(ctx, prefix, rtems_tools, rtems_path, rtems_version, rtems_arc return

Re: What sanitizers preferred?

I have asked about the constraints on LLVM sanitizers github. Waiting for their response. If sanitizers is not possible, is only adding clang-analyzer too small a project for GSOC? If its too small there are several clang tools like thread safety analysis, clang format and clang check which

[PATCH] c-user: Canonicalize configuration option groups

Update #3836. --- c-user/config/bdbuf.rst | 4 ++-- c-user/config/classic-api.rst | 3 +-- c-user/config/classic-init-task.rst | 5 ++--- c-user/config/device-driver.rst | 8 ++-- c-user/config/event-record.rst| 2 ++ c-user/config/filesystem.rst

Re: RTEMS Docs: Adding GSoC Getting Started Instructions

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 2:28 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:56 PM Niteesh G. S. > wrote: > > > > I am interested in taking up #3907. I'll mostly be copying and updating > the contents from the old wiki site. > > > > I have the following plan in mind. I'll start working on

[PATCH] Improve Python 3 compatibility

--- tester/rt/check.py | 2 +- wscript| 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tester/rt/check.py b/tester/rt/check.py index c7f6c23..2a38d99 100755 --- a/tester/rt/check.py +++ b/tester/rt/check.py @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ class warnings_errors:

Re: [PATCH rtems_littlevgl 1/2] waf: Remove unnecessary code.

Hello Vijay, thanks for the hint and the review. I removed the objects too. Beneath that I added another patch to use a release version of lvgl. Best regards Christian On 16/03/2020 21:50, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:59 PM Christian Mauderer >

[PATCH v2 rtems_littlevgl 2/3] waf: Enable optimization and debug symbols.

--- lvgl.py | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/lvgl.py b/lvgl.py index f275287..b91a265 100644 --- a/lvgl.py +++ b/lvgl.py @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ def build(bld): bld.stlib(target = 'lvgl', features = 'c', + cflags = ['-O2', '-g'],

[PATCH v2 rtems_littlevgl 1/3] waf: Remove unnecessary code.

--- lvgl.py | 11 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/lvgl.py b/lvgl.py index 5452ed0..f275287 100644 --- a/lvgl.py +++ b/lvgl.py @@ -68,26 +68,17 @@ def build(bld): sources, includes = source_list(bld) includes.append('.') -objects = []

[PATCH v2 rtems_littlevgl 3/3] Update to lvgl v6.1.2

--- lv_drivers | 2 +- lvgl | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/lv_drivers b/lv_drivers index 117812e..24cedaa 16 --- a/lv_drivers +++ b/lv_drivers @@ -1 +1 @@ -Subproject commit 117812eec9a5b82fe879f53ee0d1bf39cb9027c8 +Subproject commit

Re: Hello world and query about a project availability

Thanks for telling me about the copyright and licensing issue. I would submit a new patch before the end of the day. On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 4:52 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 2:04 PM Richi Dubey wrote: > > > > Dear Dr. Bloom, > > > > Please find my patch given below :- >

Re: Hello world and query about a project availability

Dear Dr. Bloom, I have added my name on the GSoC Tracking list and have shared a draft proposal with you. Please suggest changes in my proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bth9sh3qH2vMTks1yiGpZVskUcD-g5jED4a3zJx1Klc/edit?usp=sharing Also, currently the extension ideas I have in my mind

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a message to run 'pytest' to run rest of test suite.

On 17/03/2020 01:05, Amar Takhar wrote: On 2020-03-17 10:55 +1100, Chris Johns wrote: On 17/3/20 7:21 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: Chris, what do you think about using pytest in favour of the standard Python unitttest? I am fine with pytest. Testing is a development feature and so we can have