large bss size for sample applications

Gedare Bloom gedare at
Mon Sep 28 13:50:19 UTC 2015

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Jeff Webb <jeff.webb at> wrote:
> On 09/26/2015 01:36 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 25/09/2015 11:04 pm, Jeff Webb wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2015 07:59 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>>> The next task for me will be to set up a simple out-of tree C or C++
>>>>> POSIX
>>>>> application.
>>>>> Thanks again for all the help!
>>>>> -Jeff
>>>> Simple examples for out-of-tree builds exist in the examples-v2.git
>>>> repository with the "RTEMS Application Makefile" approach using custom
>>>> Makefiles, and with the "RTEMS Application Waf" approach using
>>>> wscripts and a git-submodule for waf support. The former is an older,
>>>> established way to build applications linking to an 'installed' RTEMS,
>>>> and the latter is a newer way to do it.
>>> Perfect!  This is just what I need.  Thanks for the pointer.
>> The Makefile approach will not be supported with the waf build of RTEMS
>> when it lands.
> Thanks for the heads up.  Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what "the waf build
> of RTEMS" means.  Does this mean that the next release of RTEMS can only be
> built using waf (and thus user applications must use it, too), or does it
> mean that in the next release, if RTEMS is built using waf, applications
> will also have to be built using waf?  I'm not too concerned with how the
> RTEMS core libraries are built, but I am interested in knowing the
> constraints placed on the application developer.  What I really want to know
> is will there be a way for users to build their applications using make, or
> is waf the only option going forward?
We're discussing this on the devel mailing list to resolve the above
statement, which I think refers specifically to the mechanisms of the
RTEMS Application Makefiles, and not to the general use of 'Makefile'
as an application build system. Make should continue to be supported,
but perhaps the mechanics of the current approach will change
slightly. As a community-oriented project, we are keen to ensure that
users face the least resistance, which also means trying to expand
support to other platforms where Make is less well-supported.

I think the above statement was just worded a bit vaguely.


More information about the users mailing list