Problem with TCP socket on RTEMS 4.8.1 (ARM BSP)

[Joel Sherrill]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 08:32 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>   
>> Gene Smith wrote:
>>     
>>> Alex Zolotov wrote, On 09/01/2008 01:41 AM:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> It seems, that problem same as described by Gene Smith
>>>> (http://www.rtems.com/ml/rtems-users/2008/august/msg00073.html) in his
>>>> post "Little Endian ARM fails on 1st TCP datagram". The reason is that
>>>> BYTE_ORDER BIG_ENDIAN defined during compiling TCP functions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Yes, this BYTE_ORDER macro seems to be a current problem at least for
>>> ARM. Also mentioned in the previous thread.  -gene
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Just to beat this one into submission.
>>     
> There is a bug in vanilla newlib, which has been supposed "fixed" in all
> current toolchain version - Otherwise we would not have been able to
> build rtems :)
>
> My most recent rtems-4.10-newlib patches contain another patch, which is
> trying to catch a corner case, we have been discarding so far.
>
>   
>>   Are we are running the
>> ARM in big or little endian mode?
>>     
> Little endian.
>
>   
>> If little endian, then the compiler has the correct predefine.
>>     
> Right.
>
>   
>> /opt/rtems-4.10/bin/arm-rtems4.10-gcc
>> #define __ARMEL__ 1
>> /opt/rtems-4.6/bin/arm-rtems-gcc
>> #define __ARMEL__ 1
>> /opt/rtems-4.7/bin/arm-rtems4.7-gcc
>> #define __ARMEL__ 1
>> /opt/rtems-4.8/bin/arm-rtems4.8-gcc
>> #define __ARMEL__ 1
>> /opt/rtems-4.9/bin/arm-rtems4.9-gcc
>> #define __ARMEL__ 1
>>
>> Where is the breakdown?
>>     
> Wish I knew that ;)
>   

Me too.  Can someone give us a breaking case?  I don't
doubt something is broken but until it is reproduced
on this side, we can't do anything about it.

> Ralf
>
>
>   


-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
   Support Available             (256) 722-9985