Weighing in late but shouldn't gcc 12 have been in the RTEMS 7 tools for a bit to allow testing. Then moved to RTEMS 6. My understanding is that the 7 tools are forward looking and this seems to have been exactly that use case.
They can be ignored by most folks most.of the time but if we say 7 has gcc next and if folks test and nothing bad is reported, those will be RTEMS 6 tools. Seems like the period for public testing as 7 didn't happen correctly. On Thu, May 5, 2022, 5:50 AM Karel Gardas <karel@functional.vision> wrote: > On 5/5/22 11:35, Chris Johns wrote: > >>> I think this is a use case where something added to the RSB may be > required to > >>> make this easier. For example logic in a bset file would be nice. > >> > >> Your idea is excellent, but I think we also may need something more > simple and > >> history preserving for the time releases are already done. > >> > >> Hence I sent a patch series creating config/6.1 as a preparation for > 6.1 release > >> with gcc 10 and update 6 (as a 6 branch dev) with Sebastian's updated > GCC 12). > >> > >> Just meant as material for discussion. > > > > I understand and thank you for contributing. > > > > A release is the tarfiles and that is fixed. > > Just checked https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/releases/5/5.1/ and you are > right! I stand corrected, in this case indeed my patch series is useless. > > Thanks, > Karel > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel