Re: [PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

On 14 May 2018 at 12:10, Cillian O'Donnell wrote: > > > On Sun, 13 May 2018, 22:15 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, > wrote: > >> On 14 May 2018 at 02:15, Cillian O'Donnell wrote: >> >>> --- >>> tester/covoar/covoar.cc | 10

Re: [PATCH] x86_64/gcc: Have gcc build crti.o and crtn.o

Hey, Chris! Just thought I'd remind you of this pending patch in case it slipped through the cracks. Let me know if you'd like any changes! On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Amaan Cheval wrote: > The original commit in GCC's repo is here: >

Re: [PATCH] no_cpu/no_bsp: Fix path to bspgetworkarea-default.c in Makefile

Hi! I figured I'd bump this. Given that no_bsp serves as the reference BSP, I think we ought to keep it relatively updated (more than what this patch does too, which I'll look into if I have the bandwidth along with the x86-64 port). That way creating a new BSP with parts based on no_bsp should

Re: [PATCH] x86_64/gcc: Have gcc build crti.o and crtn.o

On 14/05/18 11:06, Amaan Cheval wrote: Hey, Chris! Just thought I'd remind you of this pending patch in case it slipped through the cracks. Let me know if you'd like any changes! I checked in the patch. -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim,

Re: [PATCH] no_cpu/no_bsp: Fix path to bspgetworkarea-default.c in Makefile

I checked in the patch with a shortened commit message. -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de PGP : Public key available on request.

Re: [PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

On Sun, 13 May 2018, 22:15 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, wrote: > On 14 May 2018 at 02:15, Cillian O'Donnell wrote: > >> --- >> tester/covoar/covoar.cc | 10 +++--- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git

[GSoC] Procedure for linker script of new port

Hi! We discussed this briefly in a thread earlier[1], but I'd like more definitive advice if possible. What are the things to keep in mind when designing the linker script for a new port? As far as I can tell, I can just use the default one (as shown by "x86_64-rtems5-ld --verbose") with a few

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

Regarding naming, how about we settle on something like "bsps/amd64/amd64_generic", borrowing from how the riscv target is structured? On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Chris Johns wrote: > On 05/05/2018 04:07, Amaan Cheval wrote: >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 7:03 AM Chris Johns

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 14/05/18 13:14, Amaan Cheval wrote: Regarding naming, how about we settle on something like "bsps/amd64/amd64_generic", borrowing from how the riscv target is structured? In case you want to name the new architecture "amd64", then the tool chain should be renamed as well, currently we have

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 14/05/18 14:34, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:12 AM Sebastian Huber > wrote: On 14/05/18 14:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:07 AM Sebastian Huber >

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 14/05/18 14:34, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:12 AM Sebastian Huber >> > > wrote: >> >>

[PATCH] bsp/powerpc: Remove wildcards in linkcmds.base

This reverts commit 40c623a883da5dd80e4599cf4cd14097834706bd. The use of postfix wildcards, e.g. of the form "*.x" is dangerous since it circumvents the standard matching rules for sections. Unknown input sections should be added explicitly to the desired output section via "x.*" wildcards.

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 14/05/18 14:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:07 AM Sebastian Huber > wrote: On 14/05/18 13:14, Amaan Cheval wrote: > Regarding naming, how about we settle on something like >

BSPs with Same Name, Different Architecture

Hi Just a note that I had used the BSP name deos for three architectures. This worked until Chris added the BSP/architecture check. I am ok with the rule thank a bsp name is unique across all architectures but wanted to make sure this was a conscious rule now. --joel

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 14/05/18 15:20, Amaan Cheval wrote: For now, do we all agree to x86_64 as the arch, and x86_64_generic as the BSP? I would drop the _generic. I don't think there will be a non-generic BSP on this architecture. -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:07 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 14/05/18 13:14, Amaan Cheval wrote: > > Regarding naming, how about we settle on something like > > "bsps/amd64/amd64_generic", borrowing from how the riscv target is > > structured? > > In case you

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:12 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 14/05/18 14:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:07 AM Sebastian Huber > > > > wrote: > > > > On

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 14/05/18 15:20, Amaan Cheval wrote: >> >> For now, do we all agree to x86_64 as the arch, and x86_64_generic as the >> BSP? > > > I would drop the _generic. I don't think there will be a non-generic

Re: [PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

I'll commit this once there is a log message. :) On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Cillian O'Donnell wrote: > --- > tester/covoar/covoar.cc | 10 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tester/covoar/covoar.cc

gcov support in Covoar

Hello, The coverage report is showing some data now (txt only). There is still some work needed to be done for it to get merged with the main repo. As it depends on the ongoing work on the covoar.cc and coverage.py, meanwhile I want to get started with the gcov support in covoar as I already have

Re: GSOC Weekly IRC Meetings

Sebastian, I understand. For this Wed meeting it is only important that all the students attend to provide their mid-week status update. I also like your suggestion to your student to provide a Monday update/plan for the week to the devel@ mailing list. I will encourage this for all students.

Re: BSPs with Same Name, Different Architecture

On Mon, May 14, 2018, 10:16 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: > This is an excellent rule. BSP names should be unique. > I am not sure the current logic ensures that but it did break one of my name reuses. > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > Hi

Re: gcov support in Covoar

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee < vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > The coverage report is showing some data now (txt only). There is still > some work needed to be done for it to get merged with the main repo. As it > depends on the ongoing work on the

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Sebastian Huber > wrote: > > On 14/05/18 15:20, Amaan Cheval wrote: > >> > >> For now, do we all agree to x86_64 as the arch, and x86_64_generic as >

Re: BSPs with Same Name, Different Architecture

This is an excellent rule. BSP names should be unique. On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > Hi > > Just a note that I had used the BSP name deos for three architectures. This > worked until Chris added the BSP/architecture check. > > I am ok with the rule thank

[PATCH 2/3] libchip: Use rtems_blkdev_create()

Update #3358. --- bsps/shared/dev/i2c/spi-sd-card.c | 58 ++- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) diff --git a/bsps/shared/dev/i2c/spi-sd-card.c b/bsps/shared/dev/i2c/spi-sd-card.c index a343f7faa8..bf8ed403a5 100644 ---

[PATCH 1/3] libblock: Init deps in rtems_blkdev_create()

Update #3358. --- cpukit/include/rtems/blkdev.h | 1 + cpukit/libblock/src/blkdev-imfs.c | 14 ++ testsuites/libtests/block17/init.c | 10 -- 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/cpukit/include/rtems/blkdev.h b/cpukit/include/rtems/blkdev.h

[PATCH 3/3] libtests/block05: Use rtems_blkdev_create()

Update #3358. --- testsuites/libtests/block05/init.c | 47 -- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/testsuites/libtests/block05/init.c b/testsuites/libtests/block05/init.c index c20ccbf20d..79616276de 100644 ---

[PATCH] covoar: Fix build path checks for multiple executables.

--- tester/covoar/covoar.cc | 10 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/tester/covoar/covoar.cc b/tester/covoar/covoar.cc index 5c87402..c6b0589 100644 --- a/tester/covoar/covoar.cc +++ b/tester/covoar/covoar.cc @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static void

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sparc64 niagara, usiii: Remove -D options from cfg file and move to bspopts.h

I haven't tested this but what do you think of this? -RTEMS_BSPOPTS_SET([US3],[usiii],[1]) -RTEMS_BSPOPTS_SET([US3],[*],[]) -RTEMS_BSPOPTS_HELP([US3], -[If defined, enable UltraSPARC optons for the USIII BSP.]) - -RTEMS_BSPOPTS_SET([SUN4U],[usiii],[1]) -RTEMS_BSPOPTS_SET([SUN4U],[*],[])

Re: gcov support in Covoar

On 14 May 2018 at 23:37, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee < > vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 14 May 2018 at 21:21, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Vijay Kumar

Re: [PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

On Mon, 14 May 2018, 16:46 Joel Sherrill, wrote: > I'll commit this once there is a log message. :) > You want the word 'Fix' is it?... :) > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Cillian O'Donnell > wrote: > >> --- >> tester/covoar/covoar.cc | 10

Re: [PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

On Mon, 14 May 2018, 09:50 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, wrote: > On 14 May 2018 at 12:10, Cillian O'Donnell wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, 13 May 2018, 22:15 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, < >> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 14 May 2018 at 02:15, Cillian

Re: gcov support in Covoar

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee < vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14 May 2018 at 21:21, Joel Sherrill wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee < >> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> The coverage

Re: [PATCH] covoar.cc: Correct build path checks for multiple executables.

On Mon, 14 May 2018, 23:24 Cillian O'Donnell, wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 May 2018, 09:50 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, > wrote: > >> On 14 May 2018 at 12:10, Cillian O'Donnell wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 13 May 2018, 22:15 Vijay

Re: gcov support in Covoar

On 14 May 2018 at 21:21, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee < > vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> The coverage report is showing some data now (txt only). There is still >> some work needed to be done for it to get

[GSOC] Weekly report

Hi! As asked by my mentor, I am going to post my weekly project target on the mailing list every Monday. For this week I have the following planned: 1) Develop use cases (common development problems catered to, etc) for the rtems tracing support and identify what all needs to be implemented