Re: [PATCH v3] coverage : Add support to run coverage in supported bsp without extra options

On 11 July 2018 at 02:49, Chris Johns wrote: > On 11/7/18 3:18 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > > On 10 July 2018 at 20:47, Gedare Bloom > > wrote: > > > > I don't see any problem with it, but I prefer to let Chris decide on > merging... > > > > Thank you for the fe

Re: [PATCH v3] coverage : Add support to run coverage in supported bsp without extra options

On 11/7/18 3:18 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > On 10 July 2018 at 20:47, Gedare Bloom > wrote: > > I don't see any problem with it, but I prefer to let Chris decide on > merging... > > Thank you for the feedback :)  > Sorry for the delay in responding. I sugges

4.10

Hi I use this to test the master but it doesn't seem to work for 4.10 branch of rtems-tools. nohup time ./rtems-tools/tester/rtems-bsp-builder \ --rtems=/home/joel/rtems-410-work/rtems \ --build-path=build \ --prefix=/home/joel/rtems-410-work/bsps \ --log=build.log \ --warnings-report=w

Re: [PATCH v3] coverage : Add support to run coverage in supported bsp without extra options

On 10 July 2018 at 20:47, Gedare Bloom wrote: > I don't see any problem with it, but I prefer to let Chris decide on > merging... > > Thank you for the feedback :) > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee > wrote: > > ping :) > > > > On 6 July 2018 at 02:08, Vijay Kumar Banerjee

Re: [PATCH v3] coverage : Add support to run coverage in supported bsp without extra options

I don't see any problem with it, but I prefer to let Chris decide on merging... On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > ping :) > > On 6 July 2018 at 02:08, Vijay Kumar Banerjee > wrote: >> >> Hello Chris, >> >> If you find some time, please review this patch. >> It's a sm

Re: [PATCH v3] coverage : Add support to run coverage in supported bsp without extra options

ping :) On 6 July 2018 at 02:08, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > Hello Chris, > > If you find some time, please review this patch. > It's a small patch but it's important since it affects how the command > will look like. > > please review if this patch is alright or we need to have a different > a