RTEMS 4.6 and tools

Steven Johnson sjohnson at neurizon.net
Tue Jan 20 02:40:59 UTC 2004

Thanks for the responses.

I do need to run it on thumb, so this has shwn me I need to use gcc 3.3.x to 
reliably use thumb, and that there are a number of interested people in this area.

Im interested in helping get any existing thumb code integrated into a possible 
rtems 4.6.1.  Thomas, a diff between your version of RTEMS and the version of 
RTEMS you started it from would be a big (massively huge) start, I cant imagine 
integrating those changes into the current head of the 4.6 branch would be an 
overwhelming task.  There only seemed to be about 6 small bits of assembly to 
option for arm, so the job on that side doesn't seem very big.  I agree that so 
close (days away :) to release, none of this should affect 4.6.0.

I can build the various gcc versions myself no problems, my questions for these 
however are:

1.  Apart from the "Heaps of warnings" do these "newer" version of gcc cause any 
known problems with the rtems kernel?  Compile warnings I can live with (maybe 
even remove).

2.  Are there patches for gcc 3.3.x for rtems, or is vanila gcc ok as is?  If 
there are patches, where do I get them?

3. If I use the RTEMS CVS site for this arm/thumb further development (to track 
a potential 4.6.1 or 4.7), should I use the rtems-4-6-branch for development on 
this, or should I use another branch? If another, which is the prefered branch 
for on-going development.


Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 08:56, Steven Johnson wrote:
>>> Is it possible, before release to have the tools rebuilt for arm
>> No, no changes possible at this point in time. Though it has not been
>> formally announced, at least I consider everything for 4.6.0 to be
>> frozen.
> 4.6.0 is frozen feature-wise.  It is possible that a tool update
> may occur with 4.6.1 but right now, gcc 3.3.x will not be officially
> released for 4.6.0 since it generates so many more warnings.
> gcc 3.3 or 3.4 will be the 4.7 toolset.
> So if there is a gcc 3.2.x arm patch, we can consider it as part
> of a possible 4.6.1.
> There is also a newlib release planned so that needs to be
> considered as well.
>> Ralf

More information about the users mailing list