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

rename issue



Joel Sherrill wrote:
> 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.

Aha - This explains it.

>>> 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.
That was clear. I simply could not find anything which resembles Chris's 
report anywhere in my logs ;)

>> 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. 
Well, I am using entirely different (much more aggressive) warnings 
flags than what is in CVS ;)

> But we need to decide if these are desirable warnings.
BSP specific warning flags are non-sense, IMHO. We need to address the 
causes/origins of the warnings and not play with symptoms.

> If so, they should be enabled as part of the standard
> flags on all targets.
Agreed.

Ralf