Re: [PATCH] LPC1768: Fix compilation error

Hello, This issue was resolved earlier with the following patch https://git.rtems.org/rtems/commit/c/src/lib/libbsp/Makefile.am?id=a57b72ded94b4e77fd4f9bd3cc37380a02e3e35a where the inclusion of the GPIO API header file was removed from the libbsp/shared makefile and moved (in the case of the

Re: Tools for RTEMS 4.12

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Chris Johns wrote: > On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: >> I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development >> cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation >> this is the case. Also, we are planning

[PATCH] Add RTEMS 4.12 build set

--- rtems/config/4.12/rtems-all.bset | 17 rtems/config/4.12/rtems-arm.bset | 4 ++ rtems/config/4.12/rtems-autotools-base.bset| 23 +++ rtems/config/4.12/rtems-autotools-internal.bset| 13 ++

Re: [PATCH] Add RTEMS 4.12 build set

I think Chris may want to change the way RSB deals with versions, so hold off on committing until he can comment. I assume this is just cp from 4.11 to 4.12 plus search-replace? On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > --- >

Re: [rtems-source-builder commit] doc: fix link to patch for CVS

On 5/11/2015 7:30 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: > Are manuals on docs.rtems.org automatically regenerated or need to be > hand-built? I do not think so. I will discuss this with Amar today. Chris ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org

Re: Tools for RTEMS 4.12

On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: > I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development > cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation > this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google Code-In, > and bumping the tool versions could be a set