Re: gdb 8.1 released

2018-02-04 Thread Jiri Gaisler 



On 02/04/2018 09:59 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:



On Feb 4, 2018 2:35 PM, "Jiri Gaisler" > wrote:




On 02/01/2018 09:07 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:

On 31/01/18 17:54, Joel Sherrill wrote:

Hi

Perfect timing. Just as the RSB was updated and we have
built new tools. :)

Should we bump to 8.1? I would think it makes sense if it
doesn't break anything.


Needs the SIS patch an update?

%patch add gdb
https://gaisler.org/gdb/gdb-8.0.1-sis-leon2-leon3.diff

%hash sha512 gdb-8.0.1-sis-leon2-leon3.diff

f8aa851f50feb063dd63fc10018ed638c5bd1708b6b9f5d1c1e1030c8d30a24de3506bb233cc5e7e4392ed400448b59f4c71584a22ea28878295d6d87ff79342


I have updated the sis path for gdb-8.1, can be downloaded from:

https://gaisler.org/gdb/gdb-8.1.sis.diff



Thanks for the quick turnaround.

What's the barrier to getting this merged?


The main problem is that the sis code style that does not correspond to 
the current gdb standards. Each patch required to change/rework original 
sis code to gdb conventions. Also the change log provided with the 
patches was deemed insufficient. It was rather pain-staking to merge the 
first ~20 pathes and took many iterations with the gdb/sparc maintainer. 
I also feel that the gdb maintainers would want us to use the built-in 
simulator infrastructure more, rather than having a custom simulator 
core in sis. I have been gathering strength to go for a couple of new 
rounds with the gdb folks and try to submit the remaining ~10 patches. A 
few of the patches are however rather large (leon2/3 support), and I am 
not very optimistic on when (if ever) they will be accepted. I will do 
my best ...


Jiri.

___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: gdb 8.1 released

2018-02-04 Thread Joel Sherrill 
On Feb 4, 2018 2:35 PM, "Jiri Gaisler"  wrote:



On 02/01/2018 09:07 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:

> On 31/01/18 17:54, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Perfect timing. Just as the RSB was updated and we have built new tools.
>> :)
>>
>> Should we bump to 8.1? I would think it makes sense if it doesn't break
>> anything.
>>
>
> Needs the SIS patch an update?
>
> %patch add gdb https://gaisler.org/gdb/gdb-8.0.1-sis-leon2-leon3.diff
> %hash sha512 gdb-8.0.1-sis-leon2-leon3.diff f8aa851f50feb063dd63fc10018ed6
> 38c5bd1708b6b9f5d1c1e1030c8d30a24de3506bb233cc5e7e4392ed4004
> 48b59f4c71584a22ea28878295d6d87ff79342
>
>
I have updated the sis path for gdb-8.1, can be downloaded from:

https://gaisler.org/gdb/gdb-8.1.sis.diff


Thanks for the quick turnaround.

What's the barrier to getting this merged?

--joel





Jiri.

___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: gdb 8.1 released

2018-02-04 Thread Jiri Gaisler 



On 02/01/2018 09:07 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:

On 31/01/18 17:54, Joel Sherrill wrote:

Hi

Perfect timing. Just as the RSB was updated and we have built new 
tools. :)


Should we bump to 8.1? I would think it makes sense if it doesn't 
break anything.


Needs the SIS patch an update?

%patch add gdb https://gaisler.org/gdb/gdb-8.0.1-sis-leon2-leon3.diff
%hash sha512 gdb-8.0.1-sis-leon2-leon3.diff 
f8aa851f50feb063dd63fc10018ed638c5bd1708b6b9f5d1c1e1030c8d30a24de3506bb233cc5e7e4392ed400448b59f4c71584a22ea28878295d6d87ff79342




I have updated the sis path for gdb-8.1, can be downloaded from:

https://gaisler.org/gdb/gdb-8.1.sis.diff

Jiri.

___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: gdb 8.1 released

2018-02-01 Thread Sebastian Huber 

On 31/01/18 17:54, Joel Sherrill wrote:

Hi

Perfect timing. Just as the RSB was updated and we have built new 
tools. :)


Should we bump to 8.1? I would think it makes sense if it doesn't 
break anything.


Needs the SIS patch an update?

%patch add gdb https://gaisler.org/gdb/gdb-8.0.1-sis-leon2-leon3.diff
%hash sha512 gdb-8.0.1-sis-leon2-leon3.diff 
f8aa851f50feb063dd63fc10018ed638c5bd1708b6b9f5d1c1e1030c8d30a24de3506bb233cc5e7e4392ed400448b59f4c71584a22ea28878295d6d87ff79342


--
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.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.

___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: gdb 8.1 released

2018-01-31 Thread Chris Johns 
On 01/02/2018 09:26, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Chris Johns  > wrote:
> On 01/02/2018 03:54, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> > Perfect timing. Just as the RSB was updated and we have built new 
> tools. :)
> 
> Hehe
> 
> >
> > Should we bump to 8.1? I would think it makes sense if it doesn't break 
> anything.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> 
> Does "not break anything" mean getting test results posted and seeing 
> there are
> no regressions?
> 
> 
> I wasn't thinking of formal testing.
>  

We should considering doing this as we have the basic infrastructure, we just
need to link it together to make it happen.

> 
> How would we stage this? A way could be adding a recipe to the RSB for 
> 8.1 and a
> manual hack of defaults to build the tools then RTEMS.
> 
> 
> I honestly have no idea how we would do this with or without the RSB.
>  

We build the tools using the RSB, we build RTEMS and then we run rtems-test on
tier 1 BSPs and post the results to bu...@rtems.org?

It would be nice to have the process part of the normal work flow, for example
we add a new recipe to the RSB, test the tools and then migrate to it if there
are no regressions.

Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: gdb 8.1 released

2018-01-31 Thread Joel Sherrill 
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Chris Johns  wrote:

> On 01/02/2018 03:54, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> > Perfect timing. Just as the RSB was updated and we have built new tools.
> :)
>
> Hehe
>
> >
> > Should we bump to 8.1? I would think it makes sense if it doesn't break
> anything.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> Does "not break anything" mean getting test results posted and seeing
> there are
> no regressions?
>

I wasn't thinking of formal testing.


>
> How would we stage this? A way could be adding a recipe to the RSB for 8.1
> and a
> manual hack of defaults to build the tools then RTEMS.
>

I honestly have no idea how we would do this with or without the RSB.


>
> Chris
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: gdb 8.1 released

2018-01-31 Thread Chris Johns 
On 01/02/2018 03:54, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> 
> Perfect timing. Just as the RSB was updated and we have built new tools. :)

Hehe

> 
> Should we bump to 8.1? I would think it makes sense if it doesn't break 
> anything.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

Does "not break anything" mean getting test results posted and seeing there are
no regressions?

How would we stage this? A way could be adding a recipe to the RSB for 8.1 and a
manual hack of defaults to build the tools then RTEMS.

Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel