POSIX Compilance- #2966, GSoC Project 2019

[Vaibhav Gupta]

Ticket no #2971 https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2971

The header file is present in newlib:

$ find ./ -name \fenv.h
./newlib-cygwin/winsup/cygwin/include/fenv.h
./newlib-cygwin/newlib/libc/machine/spu/sys/fenv.h
./newlib-cygwin/newlib/libc/machine/spu/include/fenv.h
./newlib-cygwin/newlib/libc/machine/riscv/sys/fenv.h
./newlib-cygwin/newlib/libc/machine/riscv/include/fenv.h

./newlib-cygwin/winsup/cygwin/include/fenv.h   contains full imlementation
as defined on http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 7:04 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ticket no #3650 https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3650
>
> The header file is present in newlib:
> $ find ./ -name \ipc.h
> ./newlib-cygwin/winsup/cygwin/include/sys/ipc.h
> ./newlib-cygwin/winsup/cygwin/include/cygwin/ipc.h
> ./newlib-cygwin/newlib/libc/sys/phoenix/sys/ipc.h
> .
> and
> ./newlib-cygwin/winsup/cygwin/include/cygwin/ipc.h contains whole
> implementation.
> I guess, now we can enable the sys/ipc.h POSIX API Compliance Tests.
>
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 11:03 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 9:43 PM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:49 PM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>> As mentioned by Dr Joel that high priority is to be given to
>>>> implementations missing in FACE GPP 3.0.
>>>> So, I have got FACE Technical Standard 3.0 pdf downloaded. And its
>>>> pretty easy to compare tickets now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The FACE Technical Standard is a long and sleep inducing read. :)
>>>
>>> We have a POSIX Compliance document which tracks RTEMS vs various POSIX
>>> profiles. Many standards have POSIX profiles. SCA is for software radios.
>>> FACE TS was designed for cockpit software. Use the compliance document for
>>> ease:
>>>
>>> https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/posix-compliance/index.html
>>>
>> Thanks, I guess this document contains the list of methods that are
>> already supported. I was comparing tickets with FACE to find which all are
>> still in need to be addressed.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I track compliance against every standard I can find.
>>>
>> This is best for RTEMS
>>
>>>
>>> FYI I have supported the FACE Consortium for a number of years in
>>> various roles.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>> And while exploring big picture I got many questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - It is mentioned in the ticket #2966, *"RTEMS POSIX Compliance is
>>>> achieved via a combination of methods and .h files in RTEMS and the newlib
>>>> C Library."* .
>>>> So, if a method or a header is present in Newlib C, it is not required
>>>> to be present in RTEMS library? But that would mean Newlib is directly
>>>> ported to RTEMS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> POSIX includes the entire C Library in its definition. Newlib is our C
>>> Library so if the method makes sense to be there, we add it to Newlib.
>>>
>>> In general, threading and synchronisation go in RTEMS. But ask for
>>> specific methods. It isn't always obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> *> I had an off-list talk with Vijay, he proved to be very helpful. I
>>>> asked him same question (question 1), I would like to conclude what we
>>>> discussed. *
>>>>
>>>> *> He told that "RTEMS uses its own version of Newlib C as it cannot
>>>> directly mirror original Newlib as, if methods change the way it works,
>>>> they can break RTEMS".*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *> But then my doubt was, if that's the case, why keep modified headers
>>>> of original Newlib under separate Newlib C folder in RTEMS? Why not
>>>> directly include them in RTEMS library? (As I found newlib-1d35a003f.tar.gz
>>>> in {RTEMS-ROOT}/rsb/rtems/sources/    )*
>>>> *.*
>>>> *> To which he replied,  "RTEMS version of newlib is being used as a
>>>> libraby of RTEMS only and the posix functions are being linked to this
>>>> newlib"*
>>>> .
>>>> 2- So, My second doubt is that our target is to contribute to Newlib C
>>>> or RTEMS Library? Or we will add methods to Newlib C and link them to RTEMS?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Vaibhav Gupta
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20190318/8f2339ab/attachment-0002.html>