t; > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 3:08 PM Gregory Nutt
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder if we could automate that? Instead of separate debug vs
> > > > >
; >
> > > > > I wonder if we could automate that? Instead of separate debug vs
> > > > > production configurations, could not configure.sh/c just create a
> > > > > debug
> > > > > configuration by disabling optimization, enabling symbols, enabling
&
bug
> > > > configuration by disabling optimization, enabling symbols, enabling
> > > > debug features, assertions, basic error and warning output?
> > > >
> > > > Of course specialize configurations like a networking configure would
> > > > need mo
configure.sh/c
> > > would get you 90% there.
> > >
> > > On 11/23/2020 7:29 AM, David Sidrane wrote:
> > > > Perfect! Let's do this as time permits.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Alan C
ike network debug), but changes like that to configure.sh/c
> > would get you 90% there.
> >
> > On 11/23/2020 7:29 AM, David Sidrane wrote:
> > > Perfect! Let's do this as time permits.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-----
> > > From: Alan Carvalh
_
From: Gregory Nutt
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:07 PM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: Re: Should TASK_NAME_SIZE be changed in most configs?
I wonder if we could automate that? Instead of separate debug vs
production configurations, could not configure.sh/c just create a debug
con
day, November 23, 2020 5:09 AM
> > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Should TASK_NAME_SIZE be changed in most configs?
> >
> > Yes, I think nsh-debug will make its intention clear.
> >
> > On 11/23/20, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> >> It has always been
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:09 AM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: Re: Should TASK_NAME_SIZE be changed in most configs?
Yes, I think nsh-debug will make its intention clear.
On 11/23/20, Gregory Nutt wrote:
It has always been the policy to disable debug features in all
ect! Let's do this as time permits.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Carvalho de Assis [mailto:acas...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:09 AM
> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Should TASK_NAME_SIZE be changed in most configs?
>
> Yes, I th
Perfect! Let's do this as time permits.
-Original Message-
From: Alan Carvalho de Assis [mailto:acas...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:09 AM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: Re: Should TASK_NAME_SIZE be changed in most configs?
Yes, I think nsh-debug will make its
Yes, I think nsh-debug will make its intention clear.
On 11/23/20, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> It has always been the policy to disable debug features in all shipped
> configurations. They were considered production configurations not
> debug configurations.
>
> Configurations that have debug enable
It has always been the policy to disable debug features in all shipped
configurations. They were considered production configurations not
debug configurations.
Configurations that have debug enable could, perhaps, be named like
nsh-debug.
On 11/23/2020 5:38 AM, Alan Carvalho de Assis
I think we need to have a good compromise between features and size.
For instance, the default "nsh" demo should be small, basically just
the terminal and minimum support to its commands to work, like the
PROCFS to get 'free' working.
Also keep in mind that for debugging purpose we need to
> Do you think this is due to the
I would say so.
I agree better debugging out of the box is a good way to go. We have to
weigh that against the past goal of: Minimum size image. It was a first
impression thing. This was why debug had to be tuned off in all Kconfig.
The first question to
The NuttX support in OpenOCD relies on post file hooks to get the offsets.
You don't need to reorder them. That's more flexible than tempering with
the TCB.
Other RTOSs that use fixed offsets require a certain configuration to be
used in order to use OpenOCD.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 04:10 Matias
Actually I just tried the approach I suggested with a quick hack to both
openocd and nuttx and it seems
to be working. So, this eliminates the need to hardcode offsets. A similar
thing should be done for the size
of the tasklist table, since it also depend on build flags.
Anyway, I think the
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020, at 22:25, Brennan Ashton wrote:
> I generally agree at least for the larger ARM platforms where there is
> overhead. We have some examples that are intentionally small, but for most
> of the reference examples I think we should be making the debugging better
> out of the
I generally agree at least for the larger ARM platforms where there is
overhead. We have some examples that are intentionally small, but for most
of the reference examples I think we should be making the debugging better
out of the box.
I also usually reset this to the default when I'm debugging
18 matches
Mail list logo
