RTEMS examples build failed

[Vijay Kumar Banerjee]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 7:10 AM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:

> On 21/4/20 7:03 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:33 PM Sebastian Huber
> > <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> > <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> >     We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We could copy the wscript of the
> >     new build system to the examples and add a couple of specification
> >     items. Building test programs is really not that much different to
> >     building applications.
> >
> > Just to make sure I understood correctly: Do you suggest that we replace
> > the rtems_waf in examples with the wscript similar to the new build
> system?
>
> Hi,

> Please do not do this. I am reluctant to again head down the path of
> exposing the internals of the rtems.git build system to users via
> examples. It says to our users they need to use this approach to
> building RTEMS applications and that is not the case. It also removes
> the need for us to make sure we correctly handle exporting the needed
> build data for a BSP. I like the current separation.
>
> Understood.

> I prefer the examples are just that, an example of code to use and how
> to build an application with different build systems. I welcome support
> for other build systems being added to our examples. It just needs
> someone to maintain whatever is added.
>
> The rtems_waf approach is based on the currently exported data and when
> a new build system is agreed on and merged it will be updated.
>
>
I tried for some time to figure out some way to fix the dependency check
errors
but couldn't find any other solution. I also tried building the whole
source from
the build directory by adding this something like this:
```
       rule = 'cp ${SRC} ${TGT}'
       bld (rule = rule, source = 'init.c', target = 'fat-root-init.c')
```
This again works nicely with the build but gets stuck in the post run
checks by
gccdeps that seems to search for the headers only in the source directory.

Do you have some suggestions to try out? Patching the gccdeps works but
it seems like we don't want to do that (?)

Best regards,
Vijay

Chris
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20200421/9e563b17/attachment.html>