On 07/24/2015 04:56 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2015-07-24 16:29, Philippe Gerum wrote: >> On 07/23/2015 03:27 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> On 2015-07-23 11:45, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>> On 07/23/2015 11:37 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>> On 2015-07-23 11:24, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you still have a use case for calling rt_print_auto_init(false) or >>>>>> not calling rt_print_auto_init(true) from libcobalt's bootstrap code? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Huh, that was a day-one feature, now 8 years old, barely remember the >>>>> details. I'm currently not aware of a concrete scenario. It definitely >>>>> makes sense to revisit this think. >>>>> >>>>> I guess one, if not the major problem back then was that the implicit >>>>> malloc of the initialization step was not consistently causing a >>>>> SIGDEBUG warning. That is now different. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Since the current thread won't be notified until XNWARN is armed in its >>>> TCB, any objection to move that call as a nop placeholder to the compat >>>> section in libtrank, leaving the implicit init to libcobalt as currently? >>> >>> Ack. >>> >> >> Ok, let's see how deep you can dive into your context stack these days: >> what about rt_print_cleanup() now? I see no in-tree callers, and I >> wonder whether there is any use case for an application to stop the >> stdio support during runtime. > > I used to have one recently that was specifically interested in > terminating the associated thread. But that case was modified later on > due to other reasons. In principle, the value of this cleanup function > is in the printer thread control, even if that means cutting of wrapped > I/O (you could still print via unwrapped services then). >
Ok. Was it part of a broader feature aimed at moving the per-process rt support to a quiescent state? -- Philippe. _______________________________________________ Xenomai mailing list [email protected] http://xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
