I agree with Chris and Gedare. IMO:
- Statics have no declarations but are ordered such that they are defined first
in the source. This can be argued, some like to defer the definition arguing
it puts unimportant details early in a file and so use static declarations.
- System-wide externals ar
I'm traveling this morning but will review the changes. I know some can't be
static but this one (and all other clock get nanosecond handlers) can be static.
I was just tired of all the warnings. If I have to commit a fix to get
suggestions on a better fix, then it is working. :)
--joel
Peter
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> There is precedence for using the compiler attributes
> so I just added that and switched.
>
I think it might be better to avoid compiler attributes when there is
a language-level alternative that is compiler-agnostic. In this case,
the use
Does that work or generate an warning about statement with no effect?
Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> There is precedence for using the compiler attributes
> so I just added that and switched.
>
I think it might be better to avoid compiler attribute
Hi,
in the last days I reused my work on L4RTEMS to do a quick and dirty
test of the new virtualization layer.
The implementation -which isn't working yet- showed, that we the
i386/virtualpok BSP is a very good point to start, but the vCPU
interface of L4Re brings it's own dependencies which must
You get a statement with no effect warning.
Joel Sherrill wrote:
Does that work or generate an warning about statement with no effect?
Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> There is precedence for using the compiler attributes
> so I just added that a
Sounds good. Would it be a BSP for each hypervisor for each target CPU
type the hypervisor runs on?
-Gedare
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Philipp Eppelt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in the last days I reused my work on L4RTEMS to do a quick and dirty
> test of the new virtualization layer.
>
> The implem
Yes, it looks like it. But I think for each architecture, we can share
the most parts of the BSP and separate the hypervisor specifics.
I don't know much about virtualization on sparc/ppc/arm, so I can't say
anything about these.
Cheers
Philipp
On 09/23/2013 03:16 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> Sound
committed. please verify.
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Vipul Nayyar wrote:
> ---
> merge-helpers/check_submission | 382
> -
> 1 file changed, 189 insertions(+), 193 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/merge-helpers/check_submission b/merge-helpers/check_su
I just noticed that the bsp hooks like startup, predriver, etc which implement
methods in bootcard.h don't always have it
This is also a compile warning so may not be worth a check.
Gedare Bloom wrote:
committed. please verify.
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Vipul Nayyar wrote:
> ---
>
If we are going to require a fix for the warning, we should enforce
the check at bsp submission time instead to reduce maintenance
overhead.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> I just noticed that the bsp hooks like startup, predriver, etc which
> implement methods in bootcar
You can't always win.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> You get a statement with no effect warning.
>
> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> Does that work or generate an warning about statement with no effect?
>
> Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Joel She
If you see any other patches which could use a better approach just ping me. I
will try to fix in the plane.
Gedare Bloom wrote:
You can't always win.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> You get a statement with no effect warning.
>
> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> Does that
As we move forward, I would like to a see all submitted code warning free at
submission time. It is such a maintenance burden to address them later.
We need printf format helper strings for mode_t and wchar_t to fix the format
warnings in cpukit and some of the tests.
Gedare Bloom wrote:
If
Hello,
Good Job Phillipp,
I always guessed that we would need to tailor a BSP for each hypervisor.
Regarding the different architectures, I think we may be able to get a
consistent cross-architecture abstraction layer with some optional minor
changes due to architecture specific optimizations (i.e
Fix the prototype issues :) Either make the functions static or figure
out where the function prototype belongs in some header file.
-Gedare
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> If you see any other patches which could use a better approach just ping me.
> I will try to fix i
Hello,
Since this being the end of the coding period of GSOC 2013, I'm submitting my
report for the work done this summer. More detailed glance into the work done
can be taken at my blog (http://www.vipulnayyar.com/) across different blog
posts written over time during the GSOC timeline.
I've
Final evaluations are now open and must be submitted by this Friday,
27 September at 19:00 UTC.
-Gedare
___
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
Hi Vipul Nayyar,
That sounds great :) Looking forward to your continued participation in the
rtems development community!
Could you post this to your project wiki on the rtems wiki? That way the next
student that picks up the project will know where you left off.
Thanks!
Cindy
___
Hi
There are only a handful of printf format warnings currently.
2 warning: format '%lc' expects argument of type 'wint_t', but
argument 4 has type 'wchar_t' [-Wformat=]
4 warning: format '%lo' expects argument of type 'long unsigned
int', but argument 3 has type 'mode_t' [-Wformat=
Hello all,
Another update on my SOCIS project. Last week I have been fixing bugs on
the modifications I have done to Unity to be used with the future RTEMS
testing framework.
For those interested the changes I have made so far are here:
https://github.com/marcinbujar/Unity/compare/ThrowTheSwitch
On Monday 23 of September 2013 15:05:26 Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Does that work or generate an warning about statement with no effect?
>
> Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Joel Sherrill
>
> wrote:
> > There is precedence for using the compiler attributes
> > so I just add
Hi,
While working on a LEON3-based application, I was writing an assembly file
and so I included in order to use macros like PUBLIC() and
SYM(). When I tried to assemble my file (with sparc-rtems4.10-as) I got a
lot of "unknown opcode: typedef" errors. Looking at the headers I noticed
that it was
23 matches
Mail list logo
