On Monday 5. February 2018 01.43.55 Paul Boddie wrote:
>
> No, but the serial output isn't being done reliably in a physical sense, so
> that might be my fault rather than anything the software is doing. Is there
> some kind of assembly language file I should be looking at in the bootstrap
>
On Monday 5. February 2018 00.02.47 Adam Lackorzynski wrote:
> On Fri Feb 02, 2018 at 16:45:13 +0100, Paul Boddie wrote:
> >
> > There seems to be a "kernel" UART, but the userspace seems to have the
> > configuration details in l4/pkg/bootstrap/server/src/platform for each
> > board. Does the
On Fri Feb 02, 2018 at 16:45:13 +0100, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On Wednesday 10. January 2018 00.48.03 Adam Lackorzynski wrote:
> >
> > Adding the .global to the asm block makes thread2 a global symbol which
> > I'd like not to have here (contrary to L4UTIL_THREAD_FUNC). Just doing
> > "static void
On Wednesday 10. January 2018 00.48.03 Adam Lackorzynski wrote:
>
> Adding the .global to the asm block makes thread2 a global symbol which
> I'd like not to have here (contrary to L4UTIL_THREAD_FUNC). Just doing
> "static void thread2()" gives warnings because there is no
> implementation. Looks
On Tue Jan 09, 2018 at 23:17:10 +0100, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On Tuesday 9. January 2018 01.02.58 Paul Boddie wrote:
> >
> > So, I am assuming that the compiler gets confused by the freestanding
> > assembly language definition of the function, and the object goes missing
> > in some way that then
On Tuesday 9. January 2018 01.02.58 Paul Boddie wrote:
>
> So, I am assuming that the compiler gets confused by the freestanding
> assembly language definition of the function, and the object goes missing
> in some way that then leads to the error. Of course, the above introduces
> other
On Tuesday 9. January 2018 00.46.53 Adam Lackorzynski wrote:
> On Mon Jan 08, 2018 at 01:14:09 +0100, Paul Boddie wrote:
> >
> > I'm aiming to follow up with the binutils maintainers about this, but I
> > just wondered if any of this sounded problematic or familiar.
>
> No, not familiar. It
On Mon Jan 08, 2018 at 01:14:09 +0100, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On Monday 8. January 2018 00.37.41 Adam Lackorzynski wrote:
> >
> > Is it ok if you have visibility("hidden") instead of internal?
>
> No, it would seem that all other visibility types produce the same error. In
> fact, the only thing
On Monday 8. January 2018 00.37.41 Adam Lackorzynski wrote:
>
> Is it ok if you have visibility("hidden") instead of internal?
No, it would seem that all other visibility types produce the same error. In
fact, the only thing that seems to prevent an error is to qualify the function
signature
Hi Paul,
On Sun Jan 07, 2018 at 14:15:13 +0100, Paul Boddie wrote:
> Sorry to follow up on myself again...
>
> On Thursday 21. December 2017 01.55.51 Paul Boddie wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20. December 2017 16.52.45 Paul Boddie wrote:
> > > However, another problem has emerged when trying to build
Sorry to follow up on myself again...
On Thursday 21. December 2017 01.55.51 Paul Boddie wrote:
> On Wednesday 20. December 2017 16.52.45 Paul Boddie wrote:
> > However, another problem has emerged when trying to build L4Re. It
> > appears that something changed between r72 and r73, and now, when
On Wednesday 20. December 2017 16.52.45 Paul Boddie wrote:
>
> However, another problem has emerged when trying to build L4Re. It appears
> that something changed between r72 and r73, and now, when I try and build
> L4Re, I get a linker error as described in the following Debian bug report:
>
>
On Friday 15. December 2017 20.04.11 Paul Boddie wrote:
>
> I recently looked at the collection of patches accumulated when trying to
> get the CI20 support to a functioning state, and I think I've brought them
> up to date with the latest upstream repository version (r75). In doing so,
> I've
Hello,
I recently looked at the collection of patches accumulated when trying to get
the CI20 support to a functioning state, and I think I've brought them up to
date with the latest upstream repository version (r75). In doing so, I've also
tried to break them up into distinct parcels of
14 matches
Mail list logo
