Separation of RTEMS sources and tool chain patches

[Chris Johns]

On 30/09/2014 6:28 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> 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).

There is no argument from me about which is a better overall format.

> With an XML library the parsing of XML files is easy.

I have played with a number of XML parsers and found all sorts of issues 
in dark corners. I am happy to see it supported and I am also happy to 
see INI files supported.

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

Yes.

Chris