On Wed, 9 May 2007, M. Koehrer wrote: > thanks for your replies. > I agree that is the best to do an approach that avoids critical sections. > However, we have here the typical "historical heritage".
Nevertheless, I repeat my pledge _not_ to put new features in Xenomai because of bad programming in legacy code! Every new feature will automatically be considered by newcomers as good features, and that's _not_ the case! In my opinion, a good RTOS is one with a minimum of features, but with a maximum of good application templates. (Call it "software patterns" if you like.) > That means I still have to count on the IPC provided by the OS. I understand, but then I can't support your "complaint" about the Xenomai features not being computationally optimal :-) _You_ have a bad legacy code, so _you_ should pay the price for it, not the RTOS development or maintainability... Herman Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm _______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
