Hello,
I'm working with a new BSP and now trying to add console implementation.
I'm working on 4.11 branch.
During the last try I've got such error:
*error: unknown type name 'rtems_termios_handler'*
Although the documentation here:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 7:38 AM 18Y5C31 ZENON HANS TANEKA <
zenon.hans.tan...@dhs.sg> wrote:
> Hi! I am a GCI student working on a task. I am meeting the problem of
> 'make' returning the error
>
> *** No rule to make target 'all'. Stop.
> make[2]: Leaving directory
>
Hello,
I used this
https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/Packages/Python
to create a Makefile for Python 3.6. See attached files. Its a hack. I
used RTEMS 5.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89
hi everyone
i use the rtems 4.11.2, i want to use python, but i do not know which
version i can use in rtems 4.11.2?
is it support python 3? if you can give me some method or example to use
python in rtems, i will thank you very much
ben
bin.w...@qkmtech.com
Hi! I am a GCI student working on a task. I am meeting the problem of
'make' returning the error
*** No rule to make target 'all'. Stop.
make[2]: Leaving directory
'/home/zehata/development/rtems/kernel/pc686/i386-rtems4.11/c/pc686'
Makefile:359: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
make[1]:
On 25/10/2018 13:51, Catalin Demergian wrote:
btw, is there a unit test somewhere for the chain implementation?
otherwise I will think of a small program where I will try to make it
fail with
double insert/erase.
Yes, for example this one:
testsuites/sptests/spchain/init.c
--
Sebastian
On 25/10/2018 13:03, Catalin Demergian wrote:
This is really strange. If you use cpsid/cpsie around the append_cnt ++
and --, then append_cnt should never be > 1. If this really the case,
then this looks like a processor bug.
-> No, after I saw that it didn't fix the problem I commented the
This is really strange. If you use cpsid/cpsie around the append_cnt ++
and --, then append_cnt should never be > 1. If this really the case,
then this looks like a processor bug.
-> No, after I saw that it didn't fix the problem I commented the dis/en,
so
the value 2 was obtained without the
On 25/10/2018 11:00, Catalin Demergian wrote:
Hi,
First, I would like to conceptually understand how a function as
simple as _Chain_Append_unprotected could fail.
The chain operations fail if you try to append a node that is already on
a chain or extract a node which is not on a chain.
I
Hi,
First, I would like to conceptually understand how a function as simple
as _Chain_Append_unprotected could fail.
I added a patch like this
RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE void _Chain_Append_unprotected(
Chain_Control *the_chain,
Chain_Node*the_node
)
{
append_cnt++;
if(append_cnt >
10 matches
Mail list logo
