On 12/11/2013 1:11 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote:
What about the APIs themselves?
I could not see any mistakes and I wish I knew more to provide better
feedback. I think the strategy behind following what other are doing is
sound.
Chris
___
rtems-deve
On 11/11/2013 5:20 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 12/11/2013 7:30 am, Jennifer Averett wrote:
>> +#if defined(__rtems__)
>> +int _EXFUN(sigaltstack, (const stack_t *, stack_t *));
>> +#endif
>
> Why is this specific to __rtems__ while the type 'stack_t' is not ?
> Should this be feature rather than
On 12/11/2013 7:30 am, Jennifer Averett wrote:
+#if defined(__rtems__)
+int _EXFUN(sigaltstack, (const stack_t *, stack_t *));
+#endif
Why is this specific to __rtems__ while the type 'stack_t' is not ?
Should this be feature rather than platform controlled ?
+#if defined(__rtems__)
+ #inc
Typo, should say affinity
Jennifer Averett
On-Line Applications Research
256-319-2752
> -Original Message-
> From: ged...@gwmail.gwu.edu [mailto:ged...@gwmail.gwu.edu] On
> Behalf Of Gedare Bloom
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 2:53 PM
> To: Jennifer Averett
> Cc: rtems-devel@rtems.or
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jennifer Averett
wrote:
> The files for the proposed affinity changes to newlib are
> attached. cpuset.h is added to newlib/libc/sys/rtems/sys/
> and the following will be added to the change log:
>
> 3013-11-11 Jennifer Averett
>
> * libc/sys/rtems/sys/
The files for the proposed affinity changes to newlib are
attached. cpuset.h is added to newlib/libc/sys/rtems/sys/
and the following will be added to the change log:
3013-11-11 Jennifer Averett
* libc/sys/rtems/sys/cpuset.h: New file.
* libc/include/pthread.h: Add CPU afficini
On 11/11/2013 11:31 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Daniel,
On 2013-11-10 17:11, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
Hello,
Thanks Gedare and Sebastian for your input on SMP01, this was a
misunderstanding on my part. Please drop the SMP01 patch.
I will make another try to give feedback on the SMP testsu
On 11/11/2013 11:25 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 2013-11-11 02:22, Gedare Bloom wrote:
I think perhaps the scheduler was changed and no longer matches the assumptions
of this test..
Yes, this is the case. I didn't look at the test and relied on the "END OF
TEST" messages which normally indi
Hello Daniel,
On 2013-11-10 17:11, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
Hello,
Thanks Gedare and Sebastian for your input on SMP01, this was a
misunderstanding on my part. Please drop the SMP01 patch.
I will make another try to give feedback on the SMP testsuite in a separate
email, this time hopefully bet
On 2013-11-11 02:22, Gedare Bloom wrote:
I think perhaps the scheduler was changed and no longer matches the assumptions
of this test..
Yes, this is the case. I didn't look at the test and relied on the "END OF
TEST" messages which normally indicates a successful test completion. I
removed
On 2013-11-08 16:54, Gedare Bloom wrote:
pthread_attr can go in psxtests, cpu_set_t with 1 cpu can go in sptests.
SMP-aware versions should go in smptests, which should continue to be
conditional on --enable-smp switch.
There may need to be some psxsmptests in the future. They could
perhaps be
11 matches
Mail list logo
