> On Jul 19, 2019, at 01:21 , Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>
> A sounds like a good approach. Finding all users of these defines
> is a bit of work. They are used by shared code, so every BSP which uses this
> shared code needs the new header file.
That is mostly addressed by rebuilding all
On 18/07/2019 19:37, dufa...@hda.com wrote:
On Jul 18, 2019, at 01:16 , Sebastian Huber
wrote:
I think the should not include the low level io.h header file.
Is there an up-to-date definition of what should be in ? The latest
"RTEMS BSP and Driver Guide” says:
I don't have an
> On Jul 18, 2019, at 01:16 , Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>
>>> I think the should not include the low level io.h header file.
Is there an up-to-date definition of what should be in ? The latest
"RTEMS BSP and Driver Guide” says:
"The file include/bsp.h contains prototypes and definitions
On 17/07/2019 23:42, dufa...@hda.com wrote:
On Jul 17, 2019, at 01:48 , Sebastian Huber
wrote:
Hello Peter,
On 16/07/2019 19:58, Peter Dufault wrote:
I have a build failure with the MVME5500 “beatnik” BSP. Therefore I tried to build the
“psim” BSP and have the same failure: the FreeBSD
> On Jul 17, 2019, at 01:48 , Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>
> Hello Peter,
>
> On 16/07/2019 19:58, Peter Dufault wrote:
>> I have a build failure with the MVME5500 “beatnik” BSP. Therefore I tried to
>> build the “psim” BSP and have the same failure: the FreeBSD PowerPC
>> “cpufunc.h” and the
Hello Peter,
On 16/07/2019 19:58, Peter Dufault wrote:
I have a build failure with the MVME5500 “beatnik” BSP. Therefore I tried to build the
“psim” BSP and have the same failure: the FreeBSD PowerPC “cpufunc.h” and the RTEMS
PowerPC “io.h” headers both define static inline "eioeio()"
