Re: Traceability from specification to source code?

On 2020-03-31 05:52, Sebastian Huber wrote: Hello Gedare, On 30/03/2020 18:17, Gedare Bloom wrote: This question is related to https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-September/055519.html about code annotations, and similar discussion raised there applies here. thanks for referencing

Re: [PATCH v2] bsp/raspberrypi: Fix build warnings.

This looks right but I'm not able to try it out. On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 12:24 PM G S Niteesh Babu wrote: > > 1) _Memory_Initialize makes pointer from integer > without a cast. > 2) printf format error, expects %u but %lu provided. > --- > bsps/arm/raspberrypi/irq/irq.c | 4

Re: [PATCH] user/gsoc: GSoC Getting Started Instructions

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:17 PM Niteesh G. S. wrote: > > Where should I put the additional instructions for creating and sending > patches? > All that can go in the GSoC directions, with pointers to the other sections in the docs that support:

Re: BSP Wiki Clean Up

As a general rule, any reference to Skyeye or Test Results can be deleted. Skyeye is dead. The Test Results are horribly out of date and those can be deleted from any BSP wiki page. Skyeye and Test Results are a general rule across all these pages. Some pages have a mix of template and useful

Re: Traceability from specification to source code?

Hello Gedare, On 30/03/2020 18:17, Gedare Bloom wrote: This question is related to https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-September/055519.html about code annotations, and similar discussion raised there applies here. thanks for referencing this thread. Unfortunately, the outcomes of

Re: RTEMS Open Class in Huntsville AL US May 11-15

Given the current pandemic, we are canceling this class. The next date planned is in September. More details to come. If you have any questions about RTEMS Classes, email me. Thanks. --joel On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:03 AM Joel Sherrill wrote: > > Joel Sherrill > Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 9:30 AM

Re: BSP Wiki Clean Up

Looking for BSP pages with minimal descriptions, I have come across these initally: ARM BSPs 1) Cogent CSB337 -- csb337 2) RTL22xx (Philips/NXP ARM7) -- rtl22xx Lattice Mico32 BSPs 1) Lattice EVR 32 Motorola M68xxx and Coldfire BSPs 1)Motorola MCF5206Elite -- mcf5206elite 2)Motorola MCF5329EVB

Re: [PATCH] user/gsoc: GSoC Getting Started Instructions

Where should I put the additional instructions for creating and sending patches? I will try to send a patch most probably by tomorrow evening. Meanwhile, can you have a look at the patch that I have sent? https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-March/058716.html Thanks, Niteesh On Mon,

Re: [PATCH v11] tests for fenv.h functions

Hello everyone, I have added all the changes as recommended by everyone. does anything require to be changed? Or could it be merged now? :) On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:35 PM Eshan dhawan wrote: > --- > testsuites/psxtests/psxfenv01/init.c| 88 - >

Re: Traceability from specification to source code?

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:18 AM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > Hello, > > I started with the specification of RTEMS and created the first > specification items (the application configuration options): > > https://git.rtems.org/sebh/rtems-qual.git/tree/spec/acfg/opt > > For the RTEMS Qualification

Re: [PATCH] user/gsoc: GSoC Getting Started Instructions

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:47 PM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 28/03/2020 19:47, Niteesh G. S. wrote: > > We have an Installation chapter under the User manual > https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/user/installation/index.html > But it isn't detailed enough like the quick start guide. IMO it

Re: Libbsd Undefined References When Running FACE Conformance Tests

On 30/03/2020 17:18, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:42 AM Sebastian Huber > wrote: On 30/03/2020 16:37, Joel Sherrill wrote: > + What's the relationship between the master and 5-freebsd-12?

Re: Libbsd Undefined References When Running FACE Conformance Tests

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:42 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 30/03/2020 16:37, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > + What's the relationship between the master and 5-freebsd-12? >> https://github.com/RTEMS/rtems-libbsd#branches > > > That doesn't answer whether the

Re: Libbsd Undefined References When Running FACE Conformance Tests

On 30/03/2020 16:37, Joel Sherrill wrote: > + What's the relationship between the master and 5-freebsd-12? https://github.com/RTEMS/rtems-libbsd#branches That doesn't answer whether the master simply tracks FreeBSD or whether it includes the RTEMS modifications. Hm, to me it is

Re: Libbsd Undefined References When Running FACE Conformance Tests

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:27 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 30/03/2020 15:33, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > + Should Jeff be testing using the 5-freebsd-12 branch? > > The 5-freebsd-12 branch is intended for production systems. > OK. Then Jeff made a mistake

[PATCH v2] c-user: Use new template for integer config opts

Try to bring all descriptions up to date. Add cross-references to several options. Clarify configuration value constraints. Use this template also for initializer type options. Close #3901. --- v2: * Relace "must" with "shall". c-user/config/bdbuf.rst | 192 ++

Re: Libbsd Undefined References When Running FACE Conformance Tests

On 30/03/2020 15:33, Joel Sherrill wrote: + Should Jeff be testing using the 5-freebsd-12 branch? The 5-freebsd-12 branch is intended for production systems. + Why isn't the master in sync enough to pass this simple test? You probably use the wrong options to link the test. You need to

Specification of application configuration options

Hello, I added specification items for most application configuration options (all the ones in the RTEMS Classic API Guide). For example: https://git.rtems.org/sebh/rtems-qual.git/tree/spec/acfg/opt/RTEMS-ACFG-OPT-MAXBARRIERS.yml SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 active: true

Traceability from specification to source code?

Hello, I started with the specification of RTEMS and created the first specification items (the application configuration options): https://git.rtems.org/sebh/rtems-qual.git/tree/spec/acfg/opt For the RTEMS Qualification project we need traceability from the specification to the source code

Re: Undocumented configuration options

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:39 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 30/03/2020 15:35, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > What about the >> >> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_DEVFS >> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_DOSFS >> CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_FTPFS >>

Re: Undocumented configuration options

On 30/03/2020 15:35, Joel Sherrill wrote: What about the CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_DEVFS CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_DOSFS CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_FTPFS CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_IMFS CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_JFFS2 CONFIGURE_FILESYSTEM_ENTRY_NFS

Re: Undocumented configuration options

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:31 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > Hello, > > some configuration options are currently undocumented: > > CONFIGURE_APPLICATION_NEEDS_ATA_DRIVER > CONFIGURE_APPLICATION_NEEDS_IDE_DRIVER > CONFIGURE_ATA_DRIVER_TASK_PRIORITY >

Libbsd Undefined References When Running FACE Conformance Tests

Hi Jeff has been setting up the FACE Conformance Test Suite to test RTEMS+libbsd against the FACE General Purpose Profile. He has results for arm/xilinx_zynq_a9_qemu which fail for 37 symbols that should be satisfied from libbsd. = #include int main() { struct

Undocumented configuration options

Hello, some configuration options are currently undocumented: CONFIGURE_APPLICATION_NEEDS_ATA_DRIVER CONFIGURE_APPLICATION_NEEDS_IDE_DRIVER CONFIGURE_ATA_DRIVER_TASK_PRIORITY CONFIGURE_CBS_MAXIMUM_SERVERS CONFIGURE_DISABLE_NEWLIB_REENTRANCY CONFIGURE_EXECUTIVE_RAM_SIZE

[PATCH] c-user: New template for initializer config opts

Try to bring all descriptions up to date. Add cross-references to several options. Clarify configuration value constraints. Close #3901. --- c-user/config/bsp-related.rst | 87 ++--- c-user/config/classic-init-task.rst | 21 +

[PATCH] config: Remove BSP_DEFAULT_UNIFIED_WORK_AREAS

Do not undefine this unused BSP configuration option. --- cpukit/include/rtems/confdefs/bsp.h | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/cpukit/include/rtems/confdefs/bsp.h b/cpukit/include/rtems/confdefs/bsp.h index 7237c03522..a9a32348d6 100644 --- a/cpukit/include/rtems/confdefs/bsp.h