GSoC 2019 | POSIX Compliance - RSB patch generated ndbm library (lib_a-ndbm.o) successfully in RTEMS Toolchain

[Vaibhav Gupta]

Sounds good to me.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 6:47 PM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 2:12 AM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> After Joel pointed out in an offlist discussion,
>> I made a new patch for ndbm port.
>> .
>> To send the changes to Newlib, i had to place `ndbm.h` , `ndbm.c` in
>> their respective places and make  changes in Makefile.am.
>> Before, I applied same patch to RSB hence ndbm library was not generated.
>> .
>>
> In my local build yesterday, I saw the symbols in the installed libc.a. I
> have not run the tests.
>
>
>> .
>> This time I also added files generated by `autoreconf -fvi` in the patch.
>> .
>> This patch is 10MB in size hence cannot be send in raw format on mailing
>> list.
>>
>
> The person committing is supposed to do the autoreconf and commit that.
>
> No one has answered if it is OK to commit. That was the last message in
> the thread.
>
I will ping on that thread again for confirmation.

>
>
>> .
>> This patch worked with RSB and ndbm library (lib_a-ndbm.o) was generated
>> successfully in RTEMS Toolchain.
>>
>
> I'm hoping we can avoid this by pushing the patch to newlib, then bumping
> the hash for
> newlib in the RSB, then adding your ndbm test patch to RTEMS.
>
Yeah, meanwhile testsuite can be verified.
.
Also, please look at the sources I send on devel for fenv. Should I ignore
architectures
which are not having FreeBSD source? or Should i pick from NetBSD and
FreeBSD
both?

>
> --joel
>
>
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>> Vaibhav Gupta
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20190712/49d2d687/attachment-0002.html>