On 14/12/2020 07:31, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 11/12/2020 17:43, Joel Sherrill wrote:
If renaming them introduces challenges, then we should explicitly
use -0 for the first requirement always, and not allow unnumbered
ones to exist.
+1
I would be concerned that the unnumbered
On 11/12/2020 14:00, Sebastian Huber wrote:
---
bare/config/devel/gmp-6.1.0.cfg | 18 ++
rtems/config/6/rtems-default.bset | 1 +
rtems/config/7/rtems-default.bset | 1 +
source-builder/config/gmp.cfg | 60 +++
4 files changed, 80 insertions(+)
On 11/12/2020 17:43, Joel Sherrill wrote:
If renaming them introduces challenges, then we should explicitly
use -0 for the first requirement always, and not allow unnumbered
ones to exist.
+1
I would be concerned that the unnumbered ones would be following a
different naming
On 11/12/20 8:58 pm, Stanislav Pankevich wrote:
> Having this said, I would like to avoid pushing the CMake-way of doing things
> as
> a better way.
Yeah, lets put that to one side. That is a topic for a coffee or a bar ... one
day :)
> Instead, I could contribute feedback to Robin's work here:
On 12/12/20 6:09 am, Robin Müller wrote:
> I added the suggestions by Chris Johns now and performed some more tests (for
> example disabling the default compiler checks, custom checks are required for
> RTEMS).
>
> I used RTEMS_PREFIX instead of PREFIX
These are 2 parts that need to be
On 11/12/20 9:14 pm, Robin Müller wrote:
>
> There seems to be positive feedback, thanks for that.
>
> I can adapt the naming to be more consistent with your system.
Thanks
> My system is currently assuming that the RTEMS tools and the BSP are both
> located at RTEMS_INST
> I guess the first
Hello Joel,
that patch should most likely fix that problem:
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-December/063708.html
I haven't pushed it yet because I just posted it on Thursday and it was
only one day of review time on Friday. I'll push it on Monday (together
with some other
