Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsepius at
Tue Feb 8 00:01:27 UTC 2011

On 02/08/2011 12:37 AM, Claus, Ric wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 02/07/2011 11:29 PM, Peter Dufault wrote:
>>> On Feb 7, 2011, at 12:46 , Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> ... except that these versions are hopelessly outdated (You will really
>>>> want to use the rtems-4.11 versions), there shouldn't be much wrong with
>>>> this.
>>> Do you mean that he should also switch to 4.11 RTEMS or just tools?
>> Depends ...
>>> I'm asking because I'm about to rebuild my 4.10 mpc5554 BSP, and to get started I fetched all the tools from the 4.10 location on the FTP site.
>>> For my mpc5554 application I make a multilib with "-mfloat-gprs=single -mspe".
>>> Is that the right thing to do?
>> ... for implementing a new target or multilib and active development,
>> I'd recommend using "rtems4.11"+accompanied toolchains, because this is
>> were active development goes into.
>> ... for "production works", I'd recommend using "rtems4.10"+accompanied
>> toolchains, because they, except that still no tarball has been
>> released, are "stable".
> Is there a planned timeframe for a 4.10 release?
No, except that there repeatedly had been attempts to prepare a release 
tarballs, so far nothing has happened ...

Joel recently once more had announced an attempt, ... we'll see if it'll 
happen this time ;)

>> rtems4.9, though it's still officially labeled "stable", as far as I am
>> concerned, and though some people will want to kill me for saying so,
>> actually is de-facto "dead".
> So there is no plan to actually release 4.9.5?
Joel would be the person to answer this - I haven't looked into 4.9.x 
for quite a while.

>> I.e. to the OP, I'd recommend rtems4.11 (comprising gcc-4.5.2,
>> binutils-2.21). To you, rtems4.10 likely is the preferrable choice.
> Massively confused by the RTEMS release process...
Well, actually it's quite simple: We have 2 active branches - a "stable 
version" and a "development/bleeding edge version".

What may confuse you is that we're stuck in the transition phase from 
"stable = 4.9" to "stable = 4.10", for much too long, letting appear 
RTEMS to have 3 active branches, while hardly any works went into 4.9.


More information about the users mailing list