[PATCH] source-builder/sb/bootstrap.py: Do not reference bsp_specs to find BSPs

Joel Sherrill joel at rtems.org
Wed Nov 22 22:18:10 UTC 2017

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:

> On 23/11/2017 08:45, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> > OK. That works and is now pushed.
> >
> Nice.
> > I am just glad I didn't get a complete failing grade on my first Python
> patch. :)
> 100% pass, however I should not be grading anyone on Python.
> >
> > Any comments on the patches to the autotools infrastructure? Nibbling on
> bsp_specs
> >
> They look good.
> One thing I was wondering about is detecting gcc as a compiler and then
> optionally adding bsp_specs to the CC command line? If we detect gcc or
> clang we
> can control the option mix. I suspect this would need a gcc-clang.m4 for
> each
> layer's aclocal directory.
This could work but ...

Give me some time to pick at the bsp_specs. I have started a sweep to reduce
differences. There were spurious differences like spacing and some typos.

There are other issues to discuss that I want to discuss on the list. For
"-e entry" and "-u undefined" are used in many bsp_specs. If we made a sweep
to move them all to the linkcmds, then that would be a good thing IMO.

On the PowerPC, we have rtems_crt[in].o and I don't know why we don't have
crt[in].o from gcc to use. That seems like something isn't right.

A number of relatively straightforward issues like that rapidly reduce what
in the bsp_specs which makes it even easier to eliminate them.


> Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20171122/a63d1259/attachment.html>

More information about the devel mailing list