On 8/5/20 3:15 pm, Hesham Almatary wrote:
I am not gonna push this patch. I have only tried to run loopback and
telnetd on rv64. Even though loopback doesn't make RTEMS exit with a
failure, but the scn output doesn't look right (compared to riscv32).
telnetd scn is identical and succeed on both,
On 8/5/20 2:52 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 08/05/2020 06:49, Hesham Almatary wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 05:42, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
On 07/05/2020 22:12, heshamelmat...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Hesham Almatary
This commit fixes some run-time errors on 64-bit architectures
(e.g.,
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 05:42, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 07/05/2020 22:12, heshamelmat...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > From: Hesham Almatary
> >
> > This commit fixes some run-time errors on 64-bit architectures (e.g.,
> > riscv64)
> > in which the tcp header size would overflow 128 bytes.
>
> I
Hello Chris,
Currently sample/loopback.exe fails on risc64 with that error:
*** BEGIN OF TEST LOOPBACK ***
*** TEST VERSION: 5.0.0.e78c0806cbbf0c9fae5c8c355ea81636b704f908
*** TEST STATE: EXPECTED_PASS
*** TEST BUILD: RTEMS_NETWORKING RTEMS_POSIX_API
*** TEST TOOLS: 9.3.0 20200312 (RTEMS 5, RSB
On 07/05/2020 22:12, heshamelmat...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Hesham Almatary
This commit fixes some run-time errors on 64-bit architectures (e.g., riscv64)
in which the tcp header size would overflow 128 bytes.
I think it is a waste of time to use the old network stack with 64-bit
Hi Hesham,
I do not understand the reason here. I thought the TCP header was a
fixed size?
Chris
On 8/5/20 6:12 am, heshamelmat...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Hesham Almatary
This commit fixes some run-time errors on 64-bit architectures (e.g., riscv64)
in which the tcp header size would
From: Hesham Almatary
This commit fixes some run-time errors on 64-bit architectures (e.g., riscv64)
in which the tcp header size would overflow 128 bytes.
---
cpukit/libnetworking/sys/mbuf.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/cpukit/libnetworking/sys/mbuf.h
