RTEMS 4.6.2 BSP support

[Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 14:08, Joel Sherrill  wrote:
> 
>>Thomas Doerfler wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>apart from the comments of Joel and Ralf: Surely it 
>>>is possible to extract the new BSPs from CVS and 
>>>integrate them locally into the RTEMS 4.6.2 source 
>>>tree, but this might require a lot of tinkering...
>>
>>At this point, there have been mostly changes to:
>>
>>   + reduce Makefiles from ~1400 -> ~400
>>   + eliminate trailing spaces in files
>>   + move c/src/tests to testsuites
>>   + transition to ISO C 99 types like int32_t
> 
>      + Source code dependency tracking.
>      + Standardization of Makefiles.
>      + header installation directory cleanup.
> 
> 
>>So the Makefile's have to be completely different
>>is the current biggest issue.

This statement sounds negative and I meant it to be neutral.
The Makefile/auto* changes are positive moves in the CVS source.
They do simplify things enormously and are a critical step in
getting separate CPU and BSP Kits.

This was intended as a practical statement .. you have a
BSP from CVS and want to use it with 4.6.  The Makefile's are
different.

> A matter of perspective - IMO, this step is amongst the most important
> advances.

I agree completely.

> The #1 advance to me is the header installation directory cleanup - This
> is the step which makes shipping binaries possible).
> 
> The #2 advance is dependency tracking, which now only is possible
> because of having fundamentally redesigned the Makefiles and having
> dumped the old Makefiles. 

I have been trying to track 4.7 improvements and changes on the
website.  If you check out wwwrtems from CVS, see 
htdocs/rtems-4.7/index.html.  The writing isn't the greatest but I 
certainly invite you to explain more about the work you have been doing.
[www.rtems.com/rtems-4.7

I hope you noticed that your work is at the top of the list.
It should give you some indication of the importance I place onit.
I can't always explain it well but I try. :)

>>So in theory it is possible but it is becoming harder
>>and harder depending upon where you are patching.
> 
> Early submission encouraged - Now is the time to jump on the train ;)

Yes.  I am even fighting this.  I want to tag the SuperCore before I
attempt to merge the 3.5.1 EDF patch/CD I got while in Munich. :)
Adding Doxygen will break the patch even more.

--joel