Linker Set Based Initialization

[Joel Sherrill]

Sorry. I didn't see that patch get committed this morning and didn't realize
it addressed the issue. When you said, BSPs needed to use linkcmds.base
and not cut and paste, I took that to mean you hadn't touched any other
BSPs.

I will try to test some on BSPs you didn't.

Is the ticker addition just a temporary thing to get us through this
testing phase?

--joel

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:

> Hello Joel,
>
> before you start with wild guessing, please look at the patch:
>
>
> https://git.rtems.org/rtems/commit/?id=b618d8cfc54f84d4ed03dc7b7fa510c872e6128a
>
> ----- Am 8. Dez 2015 um 16:45 schrieb Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org>:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Sebastian Huber <
> sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
>> On 08/12/15 16:03, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>>> What BSPs/architectures have you tested?
>>>
>> I temporarily moved the splinkersets01 test to the samples/ticker and
>> tested that all BSPs build and link this test.
>>
>> I executed the splinkersets01 test on sis, psim and
>> arm_realview_pbx_a9_qemu.
>>
>>
>>> Is this something that breaks on a per BSP basis? or per architecture
>>> basis?
>>> I am assuming that since it is linker based, each BSP could have broken
>>> linkcmds.
>>> Is that right?
>>>
>> It breaks on a per linker command file basis. Since all the maintained
>> BSPs use a linkercmds.base, which shouldn't be a big issue.
>>
>>
> That means a LOT of the BSPs are broken.
>
>
> Why do you think BSPs are broken? If you look at my commit, then you will
> see that I edited every linker command file by hand! Please note that there
> are no changes for the ARM (except the GBA BSP, which is a removal
> candidate if you ask me), SPARC and i386. They already use the linker sets
> for the libbsd.
>
> You have defined maintained in your own way.
>
>
> You can use other definitions and end up likely with the same set of BSPs.
>
> There are only a handful of architectures with linkcmds.base in them:
>
> ./or1k/shared/startup/linkcmds.base
> ./arm/shared/startup/linkcmds.base
> ./m68k/shared/startup/linkcmds.base
> ./powerpc/tqm8xx/startup/linkcmds.base
> ./powerpc/gen5200/startup/linkcmds.base
> ./powerpc/shared/startup/linkcmds.base
> ./sparc/shared/startup/linkcmds.base
>
> I am not sure how many BSPs within arm, m68k, or powerpc actually use the
> linkcmds.base.
>
> By my count, 13 of 94 BSP families have linkcmds.base.
>
>> For requirements on the linker command file, see new chapter in user
>> manual. However BSPs should not deal with this in copy and paste linker
>> command files and instead use a linkercmds.base file.
>>
>>
> So 85% of the BSP families don't use linkcmds.base and by the above
> statement,
> they must immediately be migrated to linkcmds.base.
>
>
> No, nothing must be migrated. In fact such a migration would be very
> risky. You just need two section descriptions in the linker command file
> (see user manual chapter).
>
>
> Unless you have a plan to address this problem, I am on the side of
> rejecting the
> part of this patch that changes the initialization.  And the issue must be
> addressed
> before this can be merged.
>
>
> I am not aware of any issues, except the dependency on the GNU linker.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20151208/3f6a1b08/attachment-0001.html>