Tools for RTEMS 4.12

[Chris Johns]

On 6/11/2015 7:31 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 06/11/15 15:12, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 5/11/2015 6:56 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>> >I see no problem with using the newer GCC assuming our development
>>> >cycle is probably still at least 1yr+. Until we get good automation
>>> >this is the case. Also, we are planning to apply to Google Code-In,
>>> >and bumping the tool versions could be a set of tasks. If you would
>>> >like to do one or a few as a sample, then we can have high school
>>> >students do the rest during the GCI program period.
>> I am planing to talk to Joel about the RSB and it's configuration files.
>> The RSB has arrived at an interesting place where I am not sure we want
>> all versions in an RSB. If we strip back the configurations to just the
>> valid ones we will then need to have a specific versions for specific
>> releases. This would simplify the number of files.
> 
> What I noticed during creation of the 4.12 tools that a lot of includes
> are involved which make it difficult to determine what is actually the
> case. I would use more copy and paste, otherwise if you change e.g. the
> basic GCC build file, then you would have to build a lot of stuff to
> test everything. I think its better to use specific files for a specific
> RTEMS version.

The original idea was to up the last number of the base file if the
changes broke a previous version. I do not know how well this works so I
am wondering about just removing them and then have a release branch
that tracks an RTEMS release branch.

> 
>>
>> It would be nice to resolve this before adding 4.12 support.
> 
> The 4.11 branch was created more than three months ago, we should really
> provide a 4.12 tool chain soon and independent of RSB internal issues.
> 

Yes.

Chris