gccnewlib.add applies find -path=... which might cause files.gcc
getting corrupted.
This seems to be gnu-find specific and doesn't seem to be supported
by Solaris find (/usr/bin/find). I didn't see this because I use
gnu-find even under Solaris (/amd/bin/find under our Solaris
installation).
This causes the first call to find in gccnewlib.add to deliver
incorrect results and may result into incorrectly setting up the
files.* files, esp. files.gcc.
1. Fixes a typo in the code conditionalized by GEN68360_WITH_SRAM
2. Mods the code to add support for an additional bank of SRAM (needed more RAM
to run the web server!)
From <vac4050@cae597.rsc.raytheon.com> reviewed by Eric Norum <eric@cls.usask.ca>.
* updated README
* improved misc script for running the RTEMS test programs
* Updated 332 SIM configuration in start.c
* C++ global constructor fix (USE_INIT_FINI)
* change __end_of_ram to _RamEnd to match changes by others
This is the diff to let gcc-target-default.cfg use LINK.c -Wl,-r
instead of LD -r for building *.rels.
BTW: gcc -r works but seems to be undocumented, however
as gcc -r -v shows it seems to works. Now I am using -Wl,-r :-)
of an experiment to determine what it will take to multilib most of
RTEMS per GNU multilib conventions. It is thought that only
interrupt processing and IO are not multlib-able. This means that
a BSP Kit should include IRQ processing from score/cpu, all peripheral
support (header files from score/cpu, libchip, and libcpu), and the
BSPs themselves. The rest of RTEMS should be multlib-able. But to do
this, all RTEMS CPU model feature flags must be derivable from gcc
cpp predefines. By configuring the bare bsp with the rtems_multilib
CPU model, you can try any combination of CPU CFLAGS and see well how the
logic in that section of the <CPU>.h works. Once all CPU multilib
variations can be built, then RTEMS proper can be multilib'ed and
separated from the BSPs.
which splits the current monolithic specs files into a sequence of
subparts. These can be concatenated togather to make a the whole .spec
file. This cleans up the maintenance problem of having "all languages"
and a "C/C++ only" gccnewlib spec files. Plus it should make it easier
to produce variants like the gdb-m68k-bdm which require special hackery. :)
Ralf's comments:
It addresses the way *.spec.in get composed inside of the source
tree.
Changes:
* Each spec.in is broken into several files (*.add), one *.add file
per sub-package.
* Each Makefile.am composes spec.ins from the *.add files
* Removal of redundant automake support files.
* Default value for BuildRoot changed to /tmp/<spec-file-name>
* %clean stage added to *specs
Advantages (IMHO).
* The *.add files are easier to adminstrate and more flexible in
comparison to the former *.specs.ins.
* gccnewlib_c_only.spec.in now is composed from the same sources as
gccnewlib.spec.in (less errors)
* If using the default BuildRoot --clean now deletes all files that
were generated while building.
Notes:
* rtems.spec.in has not yet been adapted to the scheme used for the
other *spec.ins
* Except for cosmetical changes the internals of the *.spec files
should not have changed.
To Apply:
cvs rm -f scripts/binutils/binutils.spec.in
cvs rm -f scripts/gccnewlib/gccnewlib.spec.in
cvs rm -f scripts/gccnewlib/gccnewlib_c_only.spec.in
cvs rm -f scripts/gdb/gdb.spec.in
cvs rm -f scripts/config.sub
cvs rm -f scripts/config.guess
cvs rm -f scripts/install-sh
cvs rm -f scripts/mkinstalldirs
cvs rm -f scripts/missing
patch -p1 < rtems-rc-4.5.0-21.diff
cvs add scripts/*/*.add
cvs add scripts/*/README
What I implemented in this new driver version is, that the driver will
first probe for a DEC21140 card and use it if found. If not found it
will probe for a DEC21143 card and use that if found. This removes the
need for defining/undefining a macro (as was required with my previous
version). I tested the driver with my 21143 card using netdemo and it
apears to work just fine.
Here are some cases that I did not test, mainly because I do not have
the required testing hardware:
- I did not enhance or test PPC support
- I did not test DEC21140 support
- I did not use other test software than netdemo
