Re: Version Numbers

On 28/07/15 09:48, Chris Johns wrote: Either scheme fits pretty well with RTEMS release cycle I think. Even if we can get down to one release per year, the numbers won't grow terribly fast. >>> >>>One release per year would be nice. >>> >> >>We may need more flexibility. >

Re: Memory protection on RTEMS?

> On Sep 9, 2015, at 19:02 , Joel Sherrill wrote: > > As Sebastian mentioned if you make the task stack accessible by only > a single stack, you have to be careful not to pass pointers to objects > on the stack into paths where they will be used by another task. I’ve

Re: Version Numbers

On 10/09/15 09:49, Pavel Pisa wrote: Hello Sebastian, On Thursday 10 of September 2015 08:52:37 Sebastian Huber wrote: On 28/07/15 09:48, Chris Johns wrote: Either scheme fits pretty well with RTEMS release cycle I think. Even if we can get down to one release per year, the numbers won't

Re: [PATCH v2] untar: do not exit with error when created directory already exists (fixes #2413).

Hello Gedare and others, On Thursday 10 of September 2015 05:00:27 Gedare Bloom wrote: > Looks good. This should go on 4.11 and master? Someone can commit. please commit to both. > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Pavel Pisa wrote: > > The problem exists for both RTEMS

[PATCH] Upgrade to 4.11.99.0

--- aclocal/version.m4| 4 ++-- c/src/aclocal/version.m4 | 4 ++-- cpukit/aclocal/version.m4 | 4 ++-- testsuites/aclocal/version.m4 | 4 ++-- 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/aclocal/version.m4 b/aclocal/version.m4 index 6ca81ac..6ced838 100644

Re: Version Numbers

Hello Sebastian, On Thursday 10 of September 2015 08:52:37 Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 28/07/15 09:48, Chris Johns wrote: > > Either scheme fits pretty well with RTEMS release cycle I think. > > Even if we can get down to one release per year, the numbers > > won't grow

Re: Memory protection on RTEMS?

On September 10, 2015 2:37:35 AM CDT, Peter Dufault wrote: > >> On Sep 9, 2015, at 19:02 , Joel Sherrill >wrote: >> >> As Sebastian mentioned if you make the task stack accessible by only >> a single stack, you have to be careful not to pass

Re: [PATCH] Beaglebone: fix missing clobber in inline assembly.

Marco, This looks fine and I will apply it but I want to put it on 4.11 and master. Can you file a quick ticket on it? Thanks. --joel On 9/10/2015 10:20 AM, Marcos Diaz wrote: flush_data_cache uses R0 directly but doesn't list it as a clobbered register. Compiling with -O3 made this code

Re: Memory protection on RTEMS?

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On 9/9/2015 5:27 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote: >> >> >> El 9/9/2015 16:14, "Gedare Bloom" > > escribió: >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Sebastian Huber >> >

[PATCH] Beaglebone: fix missing clobber in inline assembly.

flush_data_cache uses R0 directly but doesn't list it as a clobbered register. Compiling with -O3 made this code break, since the function that calls flush_data_cache already uses r0. --- c/src/lib/libbsp/arm/beagle/include/bsp.h | 8 +++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff

Re: Version Numbers

On 9/10/2015 2:56 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 10/09/15 09:49, Pavel Pisa wrote: Hello Sebastian, On Thursday 10 of September 2015 08:52:37 Sebastian Huber wrote: On 28/07/15 09:48, Chris Johns wrote: Either scheme fits pretty well with RTEMS release cycle I think. Even if we can get

BSP Build Failures From GPIO

Hi I did a build sweep overnight on the master and a few BSPs have issues with the GPIO additions. arm-lpc1768_mbed_ahb_ram_eth arm-lpc1768_mbed_ahb_ram arm-lpc1768_mbed In file included from ../../../../../../../../rtems/c/src/lib/libbsp/arm/lpc176x/gpio/gpio.c:25:0:

Re: Version Numbers

On 11/09/2015 1:54 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On 9/10/2015 2:56 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >> >> On 10/09/15 09:49, Pavel Pisa wrote: >>> Hello Sebastian, >>> >>> On Thursday 10 of September 2015 08:52:37 Sebastian Huber wrote: On 28/07/15 09:48, Chris Johns wrote: >

Re: [PATCH v2] untar: do not exit with error when created directory already exists (fixes #2413).

Do you have a test you can contribute? On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Pavel Pisa wrote: > Hello Gedare and others, > > On Thursday 10 of September 2015 05:00:27 Gedare Bloom wrote: >> Looks good. This should go on 4.11 and master? Someone can commit. > > please commit to

Re: [PATCH] Beaglebone: fix missing clobber in inline assembly.

Ticket #2416 https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2416 Please let me know if this is ok and if I need to submit something else. Greetings On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > Marco, > > This looks fine and I will apply it but I want to put it on 4.11 >

Re: BSP Build Failures From GPIO

Hello, I have previously sended a patch set regarding this https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2015-August/012327.html Às 19:00 de 10-09-2015, Joel Sherrill escreveu: Hi I did a build sweep overnight on the master and a few BSPs have issues with the GPIO additions.

Re: [PATCH] Beaglebone: fix missing clobber in inline assembly.

Thanks. Should be committed now to 4.11 and master. On 9/10/2015 1:08 PM, Marcos Díaz wrote: Ticket #2416 https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2416 Please let me know if this is ok and if I need to submit something else. Greetings On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Joel Sherrill