On March 22, 2018 11:45:34 PM PDT, Vlad Ivanov <vlad.iva...@lab-systems.ru> wrote: >My personal opinion is that I dislike dynamically typed languages, >especially >ones where everything is a string. Putting actual "business logic" into >TCL >would make code way more error-prone.
While I’m not a huge fan of TCL as a language myself, in the OpenOCD world, it has one major advantage over C: if I want to write custom code, in C I have to distribute patches to my colleagues and have everyone recompile, whereas in TCL, I can just shove customizations in my board file which lives in my project repo. My target use case is a custom port of FreeRTOS: I use the vanilla FreeRTOS main code, but my own implementation of port.c as I have some needs which none of the shipped ports meet. It would be nice if I could customize my port’s stack frame layout, as I mentioned in my previous email differently for different threads, and have OpenOCD still work. It doesn’t make sense to upstream the custom code into OpenOCD because nobody else will be using my port, it being rather specific to my application. Yet I would like, in the distant future, to be able to use a stock OpenOCD. Does this seem unreasonable? -- Christopher Head
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list OpenOCD-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
