Workspace in new style

[Leon Pollak]

Thanks, Joel.

I understood now the source of my error:
My 4.8.0 based application was satisfied with 128KiB for workspace.
Now, the new 4.10 based version requires 312KiB for the same workspace!
I did not suppose that almost thrice request comes from RTEMS needs and 
thought that I have some configuration problem.

Now, is it normal that 4.10 requires so much room?

Thanks!

On Wednesday February 10 2010, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 02/10/2010 06:13 AM, Leon Pollak wrote:
> > Hello, all.
> >
> > I am trying to debug the new style BSP (with all this new unified stuff).
> > And I failed to understand the following:
> > The bsp_get_work_area function defines the workarea start and size.
> > But then it is checked against the Configuration table, which has its own
> > value for size (as minimum, may be for something else too, did not find
> > yet). In my case the check fails, so what am I supposed to do?
> 
> The Configuration.work_space_size field is the amount of
> memory calculated by confdefs.h that will be required for
> the configured set of objects.  If there is not enough
> memory, then there is a common failure path in
> bootcard.c now.  Take a look at libbsp/shared/bootcard.c
> and see how much better this code is now.  You have been
> around long enough to (I hope) appreciate how much is
> in here that used to be in individual BSPs.  And how much
> clearer the initialization process is now.
> 
> Previously this error was detected (or not)
> and handled in BSP specific ways.  This is just one area
> that significantly improved with the rework that
> was needed to support the option of unified work area.
> 
> FWIW when using unified, you may also be limited in
> the unlimited object support added years ago by Chris
> Johns.
> 
> > Thanks a lot for clarification.
>