[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

rename issue



Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Chris Johns wrote:
>   
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>     
>>> Chris Johns wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>>    
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Looks like we are heading for a new spin of the 4.10 tools
>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Yep, .... I am going to address these issues sequentially.
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>   + drop - DMISSING_SYSCALL_NAMES from configure.host
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Having cross-checked your proposal, I leaned to agree with your 
>>>>>> proposal and am about to launch a toolchain spin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please test this toolchain! Though this patch is a one-liner, this 
>>>>>> step is quite intrusive, and is not unlikely to have (so far) 
>>>>>> unconsidered side-effects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Yeah!  This one worried me.  It could easily turn up a LOT of
>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> What should we be looking for ?
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> Symbol clashes/conflicts related to "_"-prefixed function symbols and
>>> bogus/redundant <function>_r vs. <function> calls.
>>>
>>>       
I added _isatty_r.  That's the only thing I noticed or has been reported.
>> I built all targets installed on rtbf64 late yesterday (my time) and it looks 
>> like the new newlib was installed. All targets failed. Here are the results:
>>
>> http://www.rtems.org/ftp/pub/rtems/people/chrisj/pq/html/
>>
>> The error is the third one down on this page:
>>
>> http://www.rtems.org/ftp/pub/rtems/people/chrisj/pq/html/arm-20090506-3.html
>>     
> I don't understand your report.
>
>   
Just a report of warnings per target sorted by how many
times they show up across all BSPs in that target.
> For me, all arm-bsps build without any such problem, as well as all 
> toolchains did.
>   
It looks like arm-lpc2478 turns on extra warnings.  I don't
know if the flags are reasonable to turn on by default or
not.  Some of the issues it pointed out were indeed minor
type mismatches. 

But we need to decide if these are desirable warnings.
If so, they should be enabled as part of the standard
flags on all targets.  If not, they need to be removed.
> Is this a warning/error you observe when building the toolchains?
>
>   
arm-lpc2478 for me.
> Ralf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-users mailing list
> rtems-users at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>   


-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
   Support Available             (256) 722-9985