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

4.10 Approaching



Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/01/2009 04:02 AM, Kate Feng wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On 09/30/2009 06:54 PM, Kate Feng wrote:
>>>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>> On 09/30/2009 05:36 PM, Feng, Kate wrote:
>
>>>> Please advise.
>>> Are using home-grown toolchains based on the contents of
>>> ftp://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/SOURCES/4.10 ?
>>>
>>> Its contents is a bit outdated, I haven't managed to keep it uptodate,
>>> because the rapid development binutils, newlib and gdb currently are
>>> subject of kept me busy otherwise (building binary toolchains). (
>>>
>>> Which OS are you using?
>> I am in the stage of having both RHEL5 and the latest
>> Ubuntu.
> Compare for my other mail.
>
> I would seriously advise you to use the prebuilt CentOS5 rpms on RHEL5.
>
> On Ubuntu, you can try "alien"ized CentOS rpms.
>
>>> May-be the toolchain you need already exists pre-built.
>> However, I always had to build the binary from source code just in
>> case something is missing. See the patches I sent in 2009 for the
>> tools:
>> http://www.rtems.com/ml/rtems-users/2009/february/msg00125.html
>> http://www.rtems.com/ml/rtems-users/2009/march/msg00003.html
>>
>> They might not apply to others' applications, but they are important
>> for my applications, although it could be time consuming to
>> apply patches, rebuild and rebuild.
> Well, you might be aware that these patches of yours are controversal?
For the first patch, there was a follow up from ralf.corsepius at rtems.org
stating that it is added in the latest rtems-4.10 toolchain.  See
http://www.rtems.com/ml/rtems-users/2009/february/msg00151.html

Ralf Corsepius also wrote :
> ATM, the possible side-effects of this change on 
> them are not fully understood.

> Any reports ("no impact", "higher/lower memory demands", "better/worse 
> throughput", "behavior has improved/worsened") would be welcomed


Is this considered controversial ?

For the second patch, please see
http://www.rtems.com/ml/rtems-users/2009/march/msg00022.html

1) The patch automatically checks to see if
the AltiVec vector unit is available on the particular 
PowerPC processor.
2) setjmp and longjmp are machine independent.  Do you mean that
one should avoid to use them to get around the controversy of
machine dependence ?  I thought they are the open-source code,
with a respectful license that anyone can use.

Cheers,
Kate

>
> Ralf
>