[rtems commit] tests: atomic support for RTEMS. Uniprocessor tests for atomic ops.
ralf.corsepius at rtems.org
Wed Feb 13 14:44:25 UTC 2013
On 02/08/2013 01:41 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
>> Module: rtems
>> Branch: master
>> Commit: fb9fa1537a9765eae90124e5db5770ae7a527d5e
>> Changeset: http://git.rtems.org/rtems/commit/?id=fb9fa1537a9765eae90124e5db5770ae7a527d5e
>> Author: WeiY <wei.a.yang at gmail.com>
>> Date: Fri Jan 25 23:59:49 2013 +0800
>> tests: atomic support for RTEMS. Uniprocessor tests for atomic ops.
> The tests do not compile for sis at least. Maybe broken for other
> targets that do not have the atomics defined?
RTEMS doesn't compile for all targets which do not have a file named
i.e. all targets but the powerpc and the i386.
> In file included from ../../../../../sis/lib/include/rtems/rtems/atomic.h:26:0,
> ../../../../../sis/lib/include/rtems/score/atomic.h:21:35: fatal
> error: rtems/score/cpuatomic.h: No such file or directory
> compilation terminated.
> $> find cpukit/score -name cpuatomic.h
> We should have some kind of stubs so that non-supported architectures
> will compile the atomic tests.
Well, I agree to some extend, but ...
... I feel this is playing with symptoms.
The actual issue behind all this, is the atomic-API currently being
implemented as a conditional API - This is not good.
I an ideal world, one would not have any conditional API, but would have
a target-independent API.
That said, unless this issue can be resolved, IMO, all the atomic
headers should only be installed/pre-installed, if all ops and headers
are implemented for a specific target - ATM, this does not apply.
More information about the devel