Future of or1k RTEMS support?

[Joel Sherrill]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 7:04 AM Martin Erik Werner <
martinerikwerner.aac at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Regarding or1k, we (ÅAC Microtec/Clyde Space) are currently using it,
> together with RTEMS, in some of our products[0], and are thus quite
> interested in its continued life as a part of RTEMS, at least in the
> foreseeable future (i.e. RTEMS 5).
>

Thank you for speaking up. Without users filing tickets or saying they are
using a target or bsp in RTEMS, we really have no way of knowing if it is
used or not.

Do you have any local fixes which should be in the main RTEMS repository?

It would be most helpful if we could count on you to periodically test and
post results. We are happy to guide you through this.


> With regards to the upstreaming of GCC, there are still ongoing work on
> this for or1k at https://github.com/stffrdhrn/gcc .
>

As a general rule, when gcc deprecates support for an architecture or the
support doesn't get upstreamed and thus begins to bitrot, we treat that as
the biggest flag that the architecture needs to be put on an RTEMS
deprecation path.

Seeing this upstreamed is a good sign.

As long as the tools are ok and there are signs of active use, removing a
bsp or architecture is very unlikely. Unfortunately, from our perspective,
the or1k didn't appear to meet either of those criteria until recently.

>
> [0]
> http://aacmicrotec.com/products/spacecraft-subsystems/avionics/siriusobc/
> http://aacmicrotec.com/products/spacecraft-subsystems/avionics/siriustcm/
>
> --
> Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner.aac at gmail.com>
> ÅAC Microtec AB | Clyde Space Ltd.
>
> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 10:01 +0100, Hesham Almatary wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian,
> >
> > Yes, I agree with you. Furthermore, most of the or1k hardware and
> software folks are moving to riscv now.
> >
> > Should we make it obsolete?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hesham
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 at 7:10 am, Sebastian Huber <
> sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > the or1k ecosystem has a major problem with their non-FSF GCC from my
> > > point of view which is maintained here:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/openrisc/or1k-gcc
> > >
> > > The last commit was in 2016.  It looks like a dead project to me.
> > >
> > > Given the momentum RISC-V has currently why would someone still want
> to
> > > use or1k? All RISC-V tools are upstream and well maintained. It is the
> > > target with the most helpful and responsive maintainers that I worked
> > > with so far.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devel mailing list
> > > devel at rtems.org
> > > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > >
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20180824/c7ca486f/attachment.html>