On 29/11/21 11:24 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 24/11/2021 10:57, gabriel.moy...@dlr.de wrote:
>>> I am fine with this change being pushed to the 5 branch but I think it
>>> needs to built with the tier 1 archs (i386, powerpc, arm).
>> I could compile them for the BSPs of those
On 24/11/2021 10:57, gabriel.moy...@dlr.de wrote:
I am fine with this change being pushed to the 5 branch but I think it needs to
built with the tier 1 archs (i386, powerpc, arm).
I could compile them for the BSPs of those archs.
Thanks.
Does it make sense to run some test in qemu?
Test
> > > >> I am fine with this change being pushed to the 5 branch but I think it
> > > >> needs to built with the tier 1 archs (i386, powerpc, arm).
> > > >
> > > > I could compile them for the BSPs of those archs.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > > Does it make sense to run some test in qemu?
> >
> > >> I am fine with this change being pushed to the 5 branch but I think it
> > >> needs to built with the tier 1 archs (i386, powerpc, arm).
> > >
> > > I could compile them for the BSPs of those archs.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > > Does it make sense to run some test in qemu?
> >
> > Test results
> >> I am fine with this change being pushed to the 5 branch but I think it
> >> needs to built with the tier 1 archs (i386, powerpc, arm).
> >
> > I could compile them for the BSPs of those archs.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Does it make sense to run some test in qemu?
>
> Test results are always
On 19/11/21 9:32 pm, gabriel.moy...@dlr.de wrote:
>> I am fine with this change being pushed to the 5 branch but I think it needs
>> to built with the tier 1 archs (i386, powerpc, arm).
>
> I could compile them for the BSPs of those archs.
Thanks.
> Does it make sense to run some test in
> I am fine with this change being pushed to the 5 branch but I think it needs
> to built with the tier 1 archs (i386, powerpc, arm).
I could compile them for the BSPs of those archs. Does it make sense to run
some test in qemu?
> Once pushed I would appreciate an update to:
>
>
On 17/11/21 11:03 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 17/11/2021 11:42, gabriel.moy...@dlr.de wrote:
>>> The patch set should have no API/ABI impact on applications.
>> Sorry I didn't verified if the ABI is broken. We are checking this with my
>> team.
>
> I think, the patch set should have no
On 17/11/2021 11:42, gabriel.moy...@dlr.de wrote:
The patch set should have no API/ABI impact on applications.
Sorry I didn't verified if the ABI is broken. We are checking this with my team.
I think, the patch set should have no API/ABI impact on applications.
The changes are all in
Hi Sebastian,
Thx for your quick answer.
> > These commits port to rtems 5 the last changes in kern_tc and timecounter
> > pushed by Sebastian Huber.
> > Additionally the last commit closes the ticket 4549, which is a clone of
> > 2348(NTP support) for rtems 5.
>
> From my point of view this
On 17/11/2021 08:50, Moyano, Gabriel wrote:
These commits port to rtems 5 the last changes in kern_tc and timecounter
pushed by Sebastian Huber.
Additionally the last commit closes the ticket 4549, which is a clone of
2348(NTP support) for rtems 5.
From my point of view this patch set
These commits port to rtems 5 the last changes in kern_tc and timecounter
pushed by Sebastian Huber.
Additionally the last commit closes the ticket 4549, which is a clone of
2348(NTP support) for rtems 5.
Andrew Turner (1):
Create a new macro for static DPCPU data.
Brooks Davis (1):
Move
12 matches
Mail list logo
