Re: Math lib inclusion in BSP not required if CAN drivers are considered

2015-10-01 Thread Isaac Gutekunst
Hi Pavel, Thanks for the detailed reply. I guess you aren't as "horribly out of time" as you said, or perhaps are no even more out of time :) We will definitely take a good look at the LinCAN source for baud rate calculations. The more I think about it, the more I think it's worth to port

Re: Math lib inclusion in BSP not required if CAN drivers are considered

2015-10-01 Thread sudarshan.rajagopalan
+1. - Sudarshan On 2015-10-01 11:06, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Hi Pavel, Thanks for the detailed reply. I guess you aren't as "horribly out of time" as you said, or perhaps are no even more out of time :) We will definitely take a good look at the LinCAN source for baud rate calculations.

Re: [rtems-libbsd commit] builder.py: addTargetSourceCPUDependentSourceFiles

2015-10-01 Thread Chris Johns
On 2/10/2015 8:33 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Why do you think it is wrong? Because the check is for 'arm' and the file is 'mips'. Chris > > The background for this change is that we need an explicit one-to-one mapping > of libbsd and original FreeBSD files. > > - Chris Johns

Re: [rtems-libbsd commit] builder.py: addTargetSourceCPUDependentSourceFiles

2015-10-01 Thread Joel Sherrill
On 10/1/2015 2:38 PM, Chris Johns wrote: On 2/10/2015 8:33 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: Why do you think it is wrong? Because the check is for 'arm' and the file is 'mips'. If I recall correctly, the MIPS version is the most generic version and it is used for architectures which don't have

Re: [rtems-libbsd commit] builder.py: addTargetSourceCPUDependentSourceFiles

2015-10-01 Thread Joel Sherrill
On 10/1/2015 3:34 PM, Chris Johns wrote: On 2/10/2015 9:15 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: On 10/1/2015 2:38 PM, Chris Johns wrote: On 2/10/2015 8:33 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: Why do you think it is wrong? Because the check is for 'arm' and the file is 'mips'. If I recall correctly, the

Re: [rtems-libbsd commit] builder.py: addTargetSourceCPUDependentSourceFiles

2015-10-01 Thread Sebastian Huber
- Chris Johns schrieb: > On 2/10/2015 8:33 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > Why do you think it is wrong? > > Because the check is for 'arm' and the file is 'mips'. The mips variant is generic (C code only). There is no functional change. Before this change we simply

Re: [rtems-libbsd commit] builder.py: addTargetSourceCPUDependentSourceFiles

2015-10-01 Thread Chris Johns
On 2/10/2015 9:15 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On 10/1/2015 2:38 PM, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 2/10/2015 8:33 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> Why do you think it is wrong? >> >> Because the check is for 'arm' and the file is 'mips'. > > If I recall correctly, the MIPS version is the most

Re: [rtems-libbsd commit] builder.py: addTargetSourceCPUDependentSourceFiles

2015-10-01 Thread Chris Johns
On 1/10/2015 2:56 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: > diff --git a/wscript b/wscript > index 673479f..88334e4 100644 > --- a/wscript > +++ b/wscript > @@ -1053,42 +1053,41 @@ def build(bld): >'rtemsbsd/telnetd/pty.c', >'rtemsbsd/telnetd/telnetd.c'] > if

Re: [rtems-libbsd commit] builder.py: addTargetSourceCPUDependentSourceFiles

2015-10-01 Thread Sebastian Huber
Why do you think it is wrong? The background for this change is that we need an explicit one-to-one mapping of libbsd and original FreeBSD files. - Chris Johns schrieb: > On 1/10/2015 2:56 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > diff --git a/wscript b/wscript > > index

Re: How will user's compile with Makefiles? Was: Re: large bss size for sample applications

2015-10-01 Thread Chris Johns
On 1/10/2015 11:46 am, Pavel Pisa wrote: > Hello Chris and others, > > I have no problem if most of RTEMS makefiles are replaced by something > better but I would really regret if > > /opt/rtems4.11/arm-rtemsX.YY/BSP_Z/Makefile.inc > > file is not generated and installed during BSP build

Re: How will user's compile with Makefiles? Was: Re: large bss size for sample applications

2015-10-01 Thread Pavel Pisa
Hello all, On Thursday 01 of October 2015 23:59:05 Peter Dufault wrote: > Chris, Makefile isn’t custom support, it’s legacy support. For better or > for worse, if you add barriers to Makefiles you raise eyebrows in the > legacy community. They can understand an effort to adapt from BSD make to

Re: How will user's compile with Makefiles? Was: Re: large bss size for sample applications

2015-10-01 Thread Peter Dufault
Chris, Makefile isn’t custom support, it’s legacy support. For better or for worse, if you add barriers to Makefiles you raise eyebrows in the legacy community. They can understand an effort to adapt from BSD make to GNU make, but a lack of Makefile support is a check-box not checked. I