Separation of RTEMS sources and tool chain patches

[Sebastian Huber]

On 30/09/14 00:48, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 30/09/2014 3:26 am, Peter Dufault wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2014, at 02:15 , Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I can add the scripts to INI file format. I feel XML is too heavy a
>>> requirement for parsing. There is a single C++ file that does it and
>>> Python handles the format easily. I also think it is easier to read.
>>
>> Yes, INI is easier to read but XML is ubiquitous and easier to sell.  I use
>> tinyXML2.  TinyXML2 has been complete enough for me, and the footprint is
>> small enough for me even on my target devices.  On the embedded PowerPC MPC5554:
>>
>
> I am happy to have XML added to the report formats produced by the RSB. I still
> think INI is an easier format to handle and what we should embed in the RTEMS
> source tree. The data is not that complex. If this is an issue maybe INI and
> XML can be embedded.

The problem with INI is that it is a flat format.  In XML you directly see the 
hierarchy (like in your plain text output, here you use indentation).  With an 
XML library the parsing of XML files is easy.

Is all the report stuff in "source-builder/sb/reports.py"?

-- 
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
PGP     : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.