Re: [PATCH 1/2] posix: Move clock_nanosleep()

2021-05-17 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 17/05/2021 17:22, Joel Sherrill wrote: Are there other places where a system initialization item is combined in a file with something it shouldn't be? How would one spot it? Mixtures of the classic errno POSIX functions with the modern functions which just return a status is one spot. In

Re: [PATCH 1/2] posix: Move clock_nanosleep()

2021-05-17 Thread Joel Sherrill
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:19 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 17/05/2021 17:05, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > Why doesn't per item compilation and linking avoid this dependency? > > The problem is that most parts which are pulled in cannot be garbage > collected by

Re: [PATCH 1/2] posix: Move clock_nanosleep()

2021-05-17 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 17/05/2021 17:05, Joel Sherrill wrote: Why doesn't per item compilation and linking avoid this dependency? The problem is that most parts which are pulled in cannot be garbage collected by the linker due to the system initialization linker set. -- embedded brains GmbH Herr Sebastian

Re: [PATCH 1/2] posix: Move clock_nanosleep()

2021-05-17 Thread Joel Sherrill
You are free to relicense to BSD-2 if it looks clean. Why doesn't per item compilation and linking avoid this dependency? It looks OK otherwise. On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:01 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > Move clock_nanosleep() to a separate file to avoid a

[PATCH 1/2] posix: Move clock_nanosleep()

2021-05-17 Thread Sebastian Huber
Move clock_nanosleep() to a separate file to avoid a dependency on errno which pulls in the Newlib reentrancy support. --- cpukit/Makefile.am| 1 + cpukit/posix/src/clocknanosleep.c | 116 ++ cpukit/posix/src/nanosleep.c | 91