On 30/09/14 00:48, Chris Johns wrote:
On 30/09/2014 3:26 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
On Sep 29, 2014, at 02:15 , Chris Johns chr...@rtems.org wrote:
I can add the scripts to INI file format. I feel XML is too heavy a
requirement for parsing. There is a single C++ file that does it and
Python
On 30/09/2014 6:28 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 30/09/14 00:48, Chris Johns wrote:
On 30/09/2014 3:26 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
On Sep 29, 2014, at 02:15 , Chris Johns chr...@rtems.org wrote:
I can add the scripts to INI file format. I feel XML is too heavy a
requirement for parsing. There
On Sep 29, 2014, at 02:15 , Chris Johns chr...@rtems.org wrote:
I can add the scripts to INI file format. I feel XML is too heavy a
requirement for parsing. There is a single C++ file that does it and
Python handles the format easily. I also think it is easier to read.
Yes, INI is easier
On 30/09/2014 3:26 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
On Sep 29, 2014, at 02:15 , Chris Johns chr...@rtems.org wrote:
I can add the scripts to INI file format. I feel XML is too heavy a
requirement for parsing. There is a single C++ file that does it and
Python handles the format easily. I also think
Hello,
currently the RTEMS sources contain no reference to the intended tool chain
versions (Binutils, Newlib, GCC, GDB) and patches for the tools. This is
specified elsewhere, for example in the RTEMS tools repository.
Since the RTEMS version is tightly coupled to a particular tool chain
