Re: [PATCH 1/3] i386/smp: Define unused CPU_Interrupt_frame to fix compiler error

2018-03-12 Thread Joel Sherrill
On Mar 12, 2018 7:40 AM, "Amaan Cheval" wrote: Agreed. I'll look into fixing CPU_Interrupt_frame up as time permits. If you get it to compile before addressing the context switch synchronization point, one thought is to put an ifdef RTEMS_SMP with a #error where the fix

Re: [PATCH 1/3] i386/smp: Define unused CPU_Interrupt_frame to fix compiler error

2018-03-12 Thread Amaan Cheval
Agreed. I'll look into fixing CPU_Interrupt_frame up as time permits. Appreciate the help and follow-ups, thanks! On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:06 PM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 12/03/18 13:32, Amaan Cheval wrote: > > I originally sent this patch with the

Re: [PATCH 1/3] i386/smp: Define unused CPU_Interrupt_frame to fix compiler error

2018-03-12 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 12/03/18 13:32, Amaan Cheval wrote: I originally sent this patch with the intent of merely ridding the i386 targets of compiler errors, for anyone interested in looking into SMP issues on the arch. Do you believe that I should look into fixing i386's incomplete SMP context-switch support for

Re: [PATCH 1/3] i386/smp: Define unused CPU_Interrupt_frame to fix compiler error

2018-03-12 Thread Amaan Cheval
Brilliant, thanks a ton! That should keep me occupied for a bit. I originally sent this patch with the intent of merely ridding the i386 targets of compiler errors, for anyone interested in looking into SMP issues on the arch. Do you believe that I should look into fixing i386's incomplete SMP

Re: [PATCH 1/3] i386/smp: Define unused CPU_Interrupt_frame to fix compiler error

2018-03-12 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 12/03/18 13:13, Amaan Cheval wrote: Hey! Thanks for the guidance! I did look at cpu_asm.S, but I don't quite get how Interrupt_frame is being used, where by "used" I mean it in the sense that fields within it are being set to the actual register values, the way they are with stm/ltm for the

Re: [PATCH 1/3] i386/smp: Define unused CPU_Interrupt_frame to fix compiler error

2018-03-12 Thread Amaan Cheval
Hey! Thanks for the guidance! I did look at cpu_asm.S, but I don't quite get how Interrupt_frame is being used, where by "used" I mean it in the sense that fields within it are being set to the actual register values, the way they are with stm/ltm for the Context_Control structure. The reason

Re: [PATCH 1/3] i386/smp: Define unused CPU_Interrupt_frame to fix compiler error

2018-03-12 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 10/03/18 15:11, Amaan Cheval wrote: CPU_INTERRUPT_FRAME_SIZE needs to also be set to allow the RTEMS_STATIC_ASSERT in percpuasm.c to be fulfilled. The CPU_Interrupt_frame must properly defined. It must be used by the SMP context switch code (which is incomplete for i386). Please have a

Re: [PATCH 1/3] i386/smp: Define unused CPU_Interrupt_frame to fix compiler error

2018-03-10 Thread Amaan Cheval
Context: https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2018-March/020409.html I just realized that it may make more sense to use uint8_t and a CPU_INTERRUPT_FRAME_SIZE of 1 instead, if we _do_ want to leave it unused but defined. Another option I considered was simply setting a preprocessor flag to

[PATCH 1/3] i386/smp: Define unused CPU_Interrupt_frame to fix compiler error

2018-03-10 Thread Amaan Cheval
CPU_INTERRUPT_FRAME_SIZE needs to also be set to allow the RTEMS_STATIC_ASSERT in percpuasm.c to be fulfilled. Updates #3331 --- cpukit/score/cpu/i386/include/rtems/score/cpu.h | 10 +- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git