Odd, "gic_version" works just fine in the version of qemu-system-aarch64 in the
Debian package repos which is what I've been testing against. As you've
provided in the patch, the official option name is "gic-version" and that also
works. Just out of curiosity, does this cause Qemu to fail for
-Original Message-
From: Sebastian Huber
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 06:24
To: Kinsey Moore ; devel@rtems.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] spec/aarch64: Only apply SUBALIGN(4) to ILP32
>On 13/11/2020 15:53, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>
-Original Message-
From: Sebastian
-Original Message-
From: Sebastian Huber
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 06:23
To: Kinsey Moore ; devel@rtems.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] spec/aarch64: Ensure that libbsd can build properly
>On 13/11/2020 16:04, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sebastian
---
tester/rtems/testing/bsps/a53_ilp32_qemu.ini | 2 +-
tester/rtems/testing/bsps/a53_lp64_qemu.ini | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tester/rtems/testing/bsps/a53_ilp32_qemu.ini
b/tester/rtems/testing/bsps/a53_ilp32_qemu.ini
index 6dfc883..3beba06 100644
On 13/11/2020 15:53, Kinsey Moore wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sebastian Huber
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 04:26
To: Kinsey Moore;devel@rtems.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] spec/aarch64: Only apply SUBALIGN(4) to ILP32
On 12/11/2020 14:32, Kinsey Moore wrote:
The SUBALIGN(4)
On 13/11/2020 16:04, Kinsey Moore wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sebastian Huber
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 04:23
To: Kinsey Moore;devel@rtems.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] spec/aarch64: Ensure that libbsd can build properly
On 12/11/2020 14:32, Kinsey Moore wrote:
install:
On 13/11/2020 20:01, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:48 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
Hello,
there is one aspect with respect to performance limits which is
currently not considered in this proposal:
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-November/063213.html
You can run
On 13/11/2020 20:21, Gedare Bloom wrote:
I didn't really raise this in your other threads related to
performance, but how are we (RTEMS Project) defining performance
requirements? Are these simply the performance values we get by
running the tests on our release? Do we aim to hit certain
On 13/11/2020 20:03, Gedare Bloom wrote:
+Generic Non-Functional Requirement Item Type
+
+
+This type refines the following types:
+
+* :ref:`SpecTypeNonFunctionalRequirementItemType` though the
through?
Nice an automatically generated typo.
+
