Newbie RTEMs user's RTEMS build failing

[Chris Johns]

Joel Sherrill  wrote:

> jamesfit at paradise.net.nz wrote:
>
> >Is the POSIX interface worth investigating? It seems from the documentation
> >that it is not a popular option?
>
> I am sorry you got that impression from the documentation.  Where
> is POSIX denigrated?  The POSIX API tends to be the foundation for
> packages that are ported to RTEMS and a lot of people use it.
> I know that the GoAhead webserver, GNAT, NTPD, MDP, ACE/TAO, and most
> ports of GNU packages assume the POSIX API is enabled.  The RTEMS
> POSIX API is about as complete as is technically possibly given
> that RTEMS does nto have memory protection and true processes.
>
> I would like to make sure the documentation does not mislead
> anyone about the POSIX API.  I know the POSIX API wasn't that
> robust  when it initially appeared in RTEMS so there may be some
> lurking comments from that many years ago.

There was also an issue about performance compared to the classic API. The issue was 
resolved recently and the lastest results show POSIX seems to perform as well as the 
classic API. The thread can be found here:

http://www.oarcorp.com/rtems/maillistArchives/rtems-users/2002/december/msg00019.html

-- 
  Chris Johns, cjohns at cybertec.com.au