On 2014-02-05 11:28, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-02-05 11:10, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On 02/05/2014 10:42 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> So you just want me to fold patch 2 and 3 together? I don't fully get it
>>> yet.
>>
>> I'm asking for a clarification: do you have more patches following these
>> tw
On 2014-02-05 11:10, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 10:42 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> So you just want me to fold patch 2 and 3 together? I don't fully get it
>> yet.
>
> I'm asking for a clarification: do you have more patches following these
> two? I understood from the past conversation tha
On 02/05/2014 10:42 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-05 10:36, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/05/2014 10:06 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-05 09:58, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/05/2014 09:49 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-05 09:33, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 07:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wr
On 2014-02-05 10:36, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 10:06 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-02-05 09:58, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2014 09:49 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-05 09:33, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 07:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-02-04 18:
On 02/05/2014 10:06 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-05 09:58, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/05/2014 09:49 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-05 09:33, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 07:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 18:53, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:48 PM, Philippe Geru
On 2014-02-05 09:58, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 09:49 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-02-05 09:33, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2014 07:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 18:53, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:48 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On 02/04/2014
On 02/04/2014 07:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 19:26, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 07:20 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 19:03, Jan Kiszka wrote:
BTW, there are way more issues with C++ when enabling standard
compliance. Not sure where all the errors come from and if
On 02/05/2014 09:49 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-05 09:33, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 07:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 18:53, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:48 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:44 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:39 PM,
On 2014-02-05 09:33, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 07:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-02-04 18:53, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2014 06:48 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:44 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:39 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
On 02/04/2014 07:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 18:53, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:48 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:44 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:39 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:32 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/20
> Von: Philippe Gerum
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Februar 2014 18:49
>
> On 02/04/2014 06:44 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > On 02/04/2014 06:39 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >> On 02/04/2014 06:32 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>> On 02/04/2014 06:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> If g++ chok
On 2014-02-04 19:26, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 07:20 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-02-04 19:03, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> BTW, there are way more issues with C++ when enabling standard
>>> compliance. Not sure where all the errors come from and if they easy to
>>> fixing. But I thi
On 02/04/2014 07:20 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 19:03, Jan Kiszka wrote:
BTW, there are way more issues with C++ when enabling standard
compliance. Not sure where all the errors come from and if they easy to
fixing. But I think we should try to be as clean as possible in out
external int
On 2014-02-04 19:03, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> BTW, there are way more issues with C++ when enabling standard
> compliance. Not sure where all the errors come from and if they easy to
> fixing. But I think we should try to be as clean as possible in out
> external interfaces.
GCC-only typeof is our prob
On 2014-02-04 18:53, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:48 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On 02/04/2014 06:44 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2014 06:39 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:32 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:27 PM, Philippe Gerum w
On 02/04/2014 06:48 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:44 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:39 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:32 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
If g++ chokes on the initializer part because it is
On 02/04/2014 06:44 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:39 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:32 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
If g++ chokes on the initializer part because it is outdated, then
using
old-fashioned ones may be
On 2014-02-04 18:44, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:39 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On 02/04/2014 06:32 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2014 06:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
If g++ chokes on the initializer part because it is outdated, then
using
old-fashi
On 02/04/2014 06:39 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:32 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
If g++ chokes on the initializer part because it is outdated, then using
old-fashioned ones may be an option. Actually, I find macroizing this
definiti
On 02/04/2014 06:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 18:32, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
If g++ chokes on the initializer part because it is outdated, then using
old-fashioned ones may be an option. Actually, I find macroizing this
definition quit
On 02/04/2014 06:32 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
If g++ chokes on the initializer part because it is outdated, then using
old-fashioned ones may be an option. Actually, I find macroizing this
definition quite bad.
static const RT_TASK no_alchemy_
On 2014-02-04 18:32, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> If g++ chokes on the initializer part because it is outdated, then using
>> old-fashioned ones may be an option. Actually, I find macroizing this
>> definition quite bad.
>>
>> static const RT_TASK n
On 02/04/2014 06:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 17:36, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 04:18 PM, git repository hosting wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-forge
Commit: bffcc58ed0114985a4d8d8a4cff2adff1b13292d
URL:
http://git.xenomai.org/?p=xenomai-jki.git;a=commit;h=bffcc58ed01
On 02/04/2014 06:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
If g++ chokes on the initializer part because it is outdated, then using
old-fashioned ones may be an option. Actually, I find macroizing this
definition quite bad.
static const RT_TASK no_alchemy_task = {
- .handle = 0,
- .thread = 0
+
On 02/04/2014 06:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 17:36, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 04:18 PM, git repository hosting wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-forge
Commit: bffcc58ed0114985a4d8d8a4cff2adff1b13292d
URL:
http://git.xenomai.org/?p=xenomai-jki.git;a=commit;h=bffcc58ed01
On 02/04/2014 06:31 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 17:36, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/04/2014 04:18 PM, git repository hosting wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-forge
Commit: bffcc58ed0114985a4d8d8a4cff2adff1b13292d
URL:
http://git.
On 2014-02-04 17:36, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 04:18 PM, git repository hosting wrote:
>> Module: xenomai-jki
>> Branch: for-forge
>> Commit: bffcc58ed0114985a4d8d8a4cff2adff1b13292d
>> URL:
>> http://git.xenomai.org/?p=xenomai-jki.git;a=commit;h=bffcc58ed0114985a4d8d8a4cff2adff1b132
On 02/04/2014 04:18 PM, git repository hosting wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-forge
Commit: bffcc58ed0114985a4d8d8a4cff2adff1b13292d
URL:
http://git.xenomai.org/?p=xenomai-jki.git;a=commit;h=bffcc58ed0114985a4d8d8a4cff2adff1b13292d
Author: Jan Kiszka
Date: Tue Feb 4 16:12:07 2014
On 02/04/2014 04:18 PM, git repository hosting wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-forge
Commit: bffcc58ed0114985a4d8d8a4cff2adff1b13292d
URL:
http://git.xenomai.org/?p=xenomai-jki.git;a=commit;h=bffcc58ed0114985a4d8d8a4cff2adff1b13292d
Author: Jan Kiszka
Date: Tue Feb 4 16:12:07 2014
29 matches
Mail list logo
