Someone using CONFIGURE_HAS_OWN_INIT_TASK_TABLE?

[Sebastian Huber]

On 13/02/2020 16:37, Sebastian Huber wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to revisit this configuration clean up opportunity:
>
> On 09/04/2019 14:55, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 09/04/2019 14:50, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019, 2:08 AM Sebastian Huber 
>>> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de 
>>> <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hello,
>>>
>>>     is the CONFIGURE_HAS_OWN_INIT_TASK_TABLE actually used in 
>>> application
>>>     configurations?
>>>
>>>
>>> After sending that last email, this one is more likely to be used 
>>> than any of the others.
>>>
>>> Not responding to an email on the list doesn't mean it isn't used.
>>>
>>> If this option is deleted, the comparable POSIX one must go. then 
>>> you get a single init task of one or both APIs.
>>
>> This one actually doesn't cause great pain to me at the moment. I 
>> just wanted to know if it actually used. Removing it would simplify 
>> things a bit, but not much.
>>
> The CONFIGURE_HAS_OWN_INIT_TASK_TABLE and 
> CONFIGURE_POSIX_HAS_OWN_INIT_THREAD_TABLE are the last *_HAS_OWN_* 
> configuration options. I would like to remove them to simplify the 
> configuration. It would be possible to keep them and still simplify 
> the configuration, however, I doubt that these options were used at all.
>
> Any objections to remove them?

I plan to remove them next week:

https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3873

https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3874