Re: Random lwIP Crashes in _POSIX_Mutex_Lock_support()

On 10/21/2015 9:09 AM, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 09:58 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote: On 10/21/2015 8:35 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 15:08, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 09:00 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:56, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On

Re: Random lwIP Crashes in _POSIX_Mutex_Lock_support()

On 10/21/2015 8:35 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 15:08, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 09:00 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:56, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 08:24 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:13, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Thanks for the

Re: Random lwIP Crashes in _POSIX_Mutex_Lock_support()

On 21/10/15 15:08, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 09:00 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:56, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 08:24 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:13, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Thanks for the reply. On 10/21/2015 01:50 AM, Sebastian Huber

Re: Per-BSP confdefs (or resource allocation)

On 22/10/15 07:37, Chris Johns wrote: On 22/10/2015 4:33 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > >On 21/10/15 21:53, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: >>Hi Devel, >> >>I looked for a while, but couldn't find a way to specify what >>resources (semaphores, tasks, etc) a BSP requires for an empty project >>(empty

Re: 4.11 Branch BSP C++ Build Issues

On 21/10/15 23:02, Joel Sherrill wrote: == NIOS2 == Missing needed atomic operations. nios2-rtems4.11-g++ -B../../../../../nios2_iss/lib/ -specs bsp_specs -qrtems -mno-hw-mul -mno-hw-div

Re: Per-BSP confdefs (or resource allocation)

On 22/10/2015 4:33 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > On 21/10/15 21:53, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: >> Hi Devel, >> >> I looked for a while, but couldn't find a way to specify what >> resources (semaphores, tasks, etc) a BSP requires for an empty project >> (empty Init function). > > There is no

Re: [PATCH] RFS: Fix resource leak

On 21/10/15 16:23, Joel Sherrill wrote: Did you also commit this to 4.11 branch? I didn't commit anything so far. Does it apply to the 4.10 branch? Yes, see corresponding ticket. -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany Phone : +49

Re: Per-BSP confdefs (or resource allocation)

On 22/10/2015 4:41 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > If you use C11, C++11, libgomp or libbsd synchronization objects, then > the storage space for them is provided by the user and not the workspace. > Typically drivers in BSPs have used documented APIs. Is this approach and support documented and

Re: [PATCH] RFS: Fix resource leak

On 22/10/2015 4:45 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > On 21/10/15 16:23, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> Did you also commit this to 4.11 branch? > > I didn't commit anything so far. > >> >> Does it apply to the 4.10 branch? > > Yes, see corresponding ticket. > Ok for 4.10 and 4.11. Thanks Chris

Re: Per-BSP confdefs (or resource allocation)

On 21/10/15 21:53, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Hi Devel, I looked for a while, but couldn't find a way to specify what resources (semaphores, tasks, etc) a BSP requires for an empty project (empty Init function). There is no useful support for this and this is a constant source of problems.

Re: Random lwIP Crashes in _POSIX_Mutex_Lock_support()

On 21/10/15 15:35, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 15:08, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 09:00 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:56, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 08:24 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:13, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Thanks for the

Selecting Tests to run/Missing tests

Hi All, I'm trying to run the RTEMS tests for our new BSP. I've managed to get close, but am missing something. In general, I'm trying to figure out how the build system decides what tests to build. Below is a bunch of information about what I've tried. It might be irrelevant, so if there is

or1k Build Issues

Hi I think the or1k tools are out of sync with RTEMS now. or1k-rtems4.11-gcc -B../../../../../generic_or1k/lib/ -specs bsp_specs -qrtems -O2 -O0 -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wstrict-prototypes -Wnested-externs-O2 -o hello.exe init.o

Re: [PATCH] Add STM32 HAL Files for F4 and F7

I haven't actually looked at every file individually, but AFIK yes. Isaac On 10/21/2015 11:55 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote: Isaac, Is all the code attached licensed under a 2/3-bsd? Gedare On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: On 10/14/2015 3:35 PM,

4.11 Branch BSP C++ Build Issues

Hi lm32, moxie, and nios2 all have generic issues with C++ applications which indicate C++ is not really supported by gcc for these targets. Would it be OK to disable C++ for those targets? --joel ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org

Re: Per-BSP confdefs (or resource allocation)

On 10/21/2015 2:53 PM, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Hi Devel, I looked for a while, but couldn't find a way to specify what resources (semaphores, tasks, etc) a BSP requires for an empty project (empty Init function). I took a look at this page:

Re: Selecting Tests to run/Missing tests

Thanks Joel, that pushed me in the right direction. All the missing tests where living in the build tree, not the install tree. I've now gotten to the point where none of the tests run, but that's another problem for another email. On 10/21/2015 01:57 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: On

Per-BSP confdefs (or resource allocation)

Hi Devel, I looked for a while, but couldn't find a way to specify what resources (semaphores, tasks, etc) a BSP requires for an empty project (empty Init function). I took a look at this page:

Re: Selecting Tests to run/Missing tests

Please file a ticket on the off set of tests installing. It definitely is clearly something that needs a decision so we can make them consistent. I am guessing that we not install any except maybe the samples. On 10/21/2015 2:48 PM, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Thanks Joel, that pushed me in the

Re: Per-BSP confdefs (or resource allocation)

Let me clarify. I don't think I explained my predicament very well. None of the tests will run because the base application for our BSP requires resources that aren't available. On the application side we're fine. We have a couple of applications running correctly, by specifying

or1k C++ was Re: 4.11 Branch BSP C++ Build Issues

Sorry.. forgot the or1k: or1k has its own special gcc and (maybe) newlib version. They are likely out of sync enough to miss the new locking support. or1k-rtems4.11-gcc -B../../../../../generic_or1k/lib/ -specs bsp_specs -qrtems -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.

Re: 4.11 Branch BSP C++ Build Issues

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On 10/21/2015 3:52 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Joel Sherrill >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> lm32, moxie, and nios2 all have generic issues with C++

Re: or1k Build Issues

Hi, That's mainly because the RSB is fetching an upstream gcc-4.8.3 version and it applies my old patch there. I suggested to temporarily use the current or1k up-to-date repos from github (like Epiphany tools), which incorporate our RTEMS stuff, and are synced with gcc-5x version. FWIW Christian

Re: Random lwIP Crashes in _POSIX_Mutex_Lock_support()

On 21/10/15 15:48, Jay Doyle wrote: On 10/21/2015 09:35 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 15:08, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 09:00 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:56, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 08:24 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:13,

Re: Random lwIP Crashes in _POSIX_Mutex_Lock_support()

On 10/21/2015 08:24 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:13, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Thanks for the reply. On 10/21/2015 01:50 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 20/10/15 16:02, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: [...] As far as I can tell this would only occur if the caller of

Re: Random lwIP Crashes in _POSIX_Mutex_Lock_support()

On 21/10/15 14:56, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 08:24 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:13, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Thanks for the reply. On 10/21/2015 01:50 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 20/10/15 16:02, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: [...] As far as I can tell this would

Re: Random lwIP Crashes in _POSIX_Mutex_Lock_support()

On 10/21/2015 09:00 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:56, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: On 10/21/2015 08:24 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 21/10/15 14:13, Isaac Gutekunst wrote: Thanks for the reply. On 10/21/2015 01:50 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 20/10/15 16:02, Isaac Gutekunst

Re: Suggestions for BSPs to Obsolete

On 21/10/15 01:24, Chris Johns wrote: On 21/10/2015 12:56 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: On 10/20/2015 6:15 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: Maybe we should build a list of BSP directories and find maintainers for each directory in some time frame. Then remove all BSPs without a maintainer. That is one

[PATCH] RFS: Fix resource leak

Close #2433. --- cpukit/libfs/src/rfs/rtems-rfs-rtems.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/cpukit/libfs/src/rfs/rtems-rfs-rtems.c b/cpukit/libfs/src/rfs/rtems-rfs-rtems.c index 999dfb3..a0ade04 100644 --- a/cpukit/libfs/src/rfs/rtems-rfs-rtems.c +++