Re: [lwip-users] upgrade from 1.4.1 to 2.0.3

2018-03-09 Thread Mattia Settin
Hi Ok, thank you. Best regards On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Sylvain Rochet wrote: > Hi Mattia, > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:39:03PM +0100, Mattia Settin wrote: > > Hi > > Thanks > > Buh how is possible that: with an operative system > sys_timeouts_mbox_fetch call > > sys_check_timeouts() w

Re: [lwip-users] upgrade from 1.4.1 to 2.0.3

2018-03-08 Thread Sylvain Rochet
Hi Mattia, On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:39:03PM +0100, Mattia Settin wrote: > Hi > Thanks > Buh how is possible that: with an operative system sys_timeouts_mbox_fetch > call > sys_check_timeouts() which is the handle timeouts for NO_SYS==1. > Is the comment of sys_check_timeouts() wrong ? Well, I

Re: [lwip-users] upgrade from 1.4.1 to 2.0.3

2018-03-08 Thread Mattia Settin
Hi Thanks Buh how is possible that: with an operative system sys_timeouts_mbox_fetch call sys_check_timeouts() which is the handle timeouts for NO_SYS==1. Is the comment of sys_check_timeouts() wrong ? On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Sylvain Rochet wrote: > Hi Mattia, > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018

Re: [lwip-users] upgrade from 1.4.1 to 2.0.3

2018-03-08 Thread Sylvain Rochet
Hi Mattia, On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:14:33AM +0100, Mattia Settin wrote: > Yes, but sys_now is required even for timeouts for NO_SYS==0 (LWIP_TIMERS = > 1). It this correct ? This is correct, sys_now() is now necessary for all systems, furthermore it should be bound, at best, to a monotonic clo

Re: [lwip-users] upgrade from 1.4.1 to 2.0.3

2018-03-08 Thread Mattia Settin
In addition I don't really get why with NO_SYS = 0 (with FreeRTOS) sys_timeouts_mbox_fetch call sys_check_timeouts() which is the handle timeouts for NO_SYS==1 (without OS) Probably I have an too old port file for FreeRTOS. Regards m On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Mattia Settin wrote: > Yes, bu

Re: [lwip-users] upgrade from 1.4.1 to 2.0.3

2018-03-08 Thread Mattia Settin
Yes, but sys_now is required even for timeouts for NO_SYS==0 (LWIP_TIMERS = 1). It this correct ? On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:02 PM, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote: > On 07.03.2018 17:40, Mattia Settin wrote: > >> [..] >> The question is: >> It is now mandatory define/use sys_now() ? >> > > You can do with

Re: [lwip-users] upgrade from 1.4.1 to 2.0.3

2018-03-07 Thread goldsi...@gmx.de
On 07.03.2018 17:40, Mattia Settin wrote: [..] The question is: It is now mandatory define/use sys_now() ? You can do without, but a number of features new to 2.0.x (or improved there) require it. Right now, the list is: - timeouts for NO_SYS==1 - LWIP_SO_SNDTIMEO - LWIP_SO_LINGER - lwiperf a

[lwip-users] upgrade from 1.4.1 to 2.0.3

2018-03-07 Thread Mattia Settin
Dear I'm upgrading my application from from lwip 1.4.1 to 2.0.3 version. My current configuration is #define LWIP_TIMERS 1 #define LWIP_TIMERS_CUSTOM 0 #define NO_SYS 0 I note that v. 2.0.3: timeouts_last_time is always define v 1.4.1, timeouts_last_time no define (with N