On 22/01/2019 17:35, Gedare Bloom wrote:
Hello all,
I'm debugging a problem for someone, and they appear to be using a
simple binary semaphore with a timeout that might be triggering a bug.
I can't find a test case for simple binary semaphores in RTEMS with
timeout, am I missing something? I
On 23/01/2019 08:23, Chris Johns wrote:
I am OK with something new and better but we need to make sure what we offer is
consistent and makes sense to users. I am concerned users will become confused
if we have multiple approaches with separate code, set up, post processing and
documentation. I
On 23/1/19 6:13 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 23/01/2019 07:49, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 23/1/19 12:34 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> Hello Chris,
>>>
>>> On 20/12/2018 07:46, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Sorry but I have no time to review this and consider it until next year.
No problem,
On 23/1/19 5:50 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 22/01/2019 23:42, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 23/1/19 5:34 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> I don't object.
>> Is executive the right abstraction? Both terms are an abstraction because we
>> have a single address space and literal or formal interpretation
On 22/01/2019 23:42, Chris Johns wrote:
On 23/1/19 5:34 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I don't object.
Is executive the right abstraction? Both terms are an abstraction because we
have a single address space and literal or formal interpretation breaks down. I
see the physical separation as an
On 23/1/19 12:34 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Chris,
>
> On 20/12/2018 07:46, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry but I have no time to review this and consider it until next year.
>>
>> No problem, take your time. I work on this since April this year from time to
>> time, so it can wait a
Hello Joel,
On 22/01/2019 23:04, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
I put this on hold for the Christmas holidays and wanted to post what
worked and didn't for me. This is on Centos 7 building C, C++ and Ada
to target sparc-rtems5 using the RSB master.
I tried various gcc versions with Ada support. I
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:08 PM Chris Johns wrote:
> On 23/1/19 9:04 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Notice that the build succeeds when using a native version that matches
> the
> > version being built cross. This is in keeping with long-standing advice.
>
> Should the RSB be taught to check for
On 23/1/19 5:34 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> I don't object.
Is executive the right abstraction? Both terms are an abstraction because we
have a single address space and literal or formal interpretation breaks down. I
see the physical separation as an implementation detail.
Which term is the
On 23/1/19 9:04 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Notice that the build succeeds when using a native version that matches the
> version being built cross. This is in keeping with long-standing advice.
Should the RSB be taught to check for gcc and the native version if an Ada build
is requested?
Can we
Hi
I put this on hold for the Christmas holidays and wanted to post what
worked and didn't for me. This is on Centos 7 building C, C++ and Ada to
target sparc-rtems5 using the RSB master.
I tried various gcc versions with Ada support. I ensured which gcc I was
using by putting it at the front of
I don't object.
However, if you go back in time to the early RTEMS days, executive and
kernel were used interchangeably. Both were less full-featured than what
was called an OS back in those days. Now that RTEMS has file systems,
networking, etc, it is proper under those old conventions to use OS
Hello all,
I'm debugging a problem for someone, and they appear to be using a simple
binary semaphore with a timeout that might be triggering a bug. I can't
find a test case for simple binary semaphores in RTEMS with timeout, am I
missing something? I also don't see tests for binary semaphores
I mean, yes let's call it executive. There is no "kernel" in RTEMS.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:32 AM Gedare Bloom wrote:
> I think this is appropriate for terminology.
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:26 AM Sebastian Huber <
> sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> in the
I think this is appropriate for terminology.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:26 AM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in the documentation sometimes the name "executive" and sometimes
> "kernel" is used for RTEMS itself. I think "kernel" should be better
> used
Hello,
I would like to introduce a rule for the Sphinx documentation:
"Use CamelCase for Sphinx reference names, e.g.
.. _QuickStart:"
The rational for this is that CamelCase is not used much in the RTEMS
world, so this makes it easy to grep for references.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded
Hello,
in the documentation sometimes the name "executive" and sometimes
"kernel" is used for RTEMS itself. I think "kernel" should be better
used for systems with a kernel/user space separation. I will use RTEMS
executive throughout the documentation if nobody objects.
--
Sebastian Huber,
http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s13.html#purpose14
Update #3679.
---
source-builder/sb/linux.py | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/source-builder/sb/linux.py b/source-builder/sb/linux.py
index 9d90288..e6c5470 100644
--- a/source-builder/sb/linux.py
+++
Sebastian Huber (2):
sb: Change Linux default prefix to "/opt"
sb: Change default prefix
source-builder/sb/linux.py | 1 +
source-builder/sb/options.py | 6 ++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
--
2.16.4
___
devel mailing list
Use OS prefix + "rtems" + $rtems_version as the default prefix to
automatically separate different RTEMS versions.
Close #3679.
---
source-builder/sb/options.py | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/source-builder/sb/options.py b/source-builder/sb/options.py
index
Hello Chris,
On 20/12/2018 07:46, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Sorry but I have no time to review this and consider it until next year.
No problem, take your time. I work on this since April this year from
time to time, so it can wait a couple of more weeks.
had you time to look at this?
The
On 17/01/2019 09:29, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello,
I would like to add a "freebsd-12" branch to libbsd which tracks the
FreeBSD 12 stable branch instead of the trunk. I would like to figure
out if it is possible to maintain this branch more easily for
production systems. The libbsd master
On 21/01/2019 16:49, Jiri Gaisler wrote:
Fourth take on adding a bsp for a RISC-V GRLIB cpu, taking into account
previous comments.
Jiri Gaisler (6):
grlib: Fix inludes
grlib: make apbuart driver independent of bsp
grlib: use rtems_interrupt_handler_install() for all interrupt
On 22/1/19 5:24 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
> Thanks, this works. See v2 of the default prefix patch.
>
Both are OK to push.
Thanks
Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
24 matches
Mail list logo
