This is the mail archive of the
ecos-devel@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Gnutools: consideration for upgrade to GCC 4.6
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2012-01-14, Sergei Gavrikov <sergei.gavrikov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > By the way I like their built-in __rtems__ definition for own GCC builds
> > and I guess in the end we would propagate __ecos__ for own ones on the
> > occasion of renewal.
>
> Why?
Simply to distinguish the official releases of toolchains (I hope well
tested) and any home-cooked toolchains. I meant such predefined things
for GCC (CPP)
% i386-rtems4.11-gcc -dM -E - </dev/null | grep __rtems__
#define __rtems__ 1
and the same we could have for officially supported releases for ecos,
e.g.
% i386-ecos3.12-gcc -dM -E -</dev/null | grep __ecos__
#define __ecos__ 1
Secondly, it lets anyone to use such checks in sources, e.g.
#if __linux__
# include <endian.h>
#elif __ecos__
# include <machine/endian.h>
#else
...
#endif
For now we usually add '-D__ECOS__' to CFLAGS for some packages.
The third, Why we should avoid to say that eCos is also well known,
widely used OS?
> Are the eCos sources going to start requiring use of specific
> toolchain binaries?
Nope. Anyone can use own binaries if he/she wants.
> I've been using eCos for a long time, and have always used my own
> toolchains. I'd be pretty unhappy if that was no longer possible.
Why it will be not possible? I did not understand. You can use own, but,
a bug reporter should/may use officially supported "labeled" toolchain
to check the roots of some issue on crashes. But, naturally, I do not
resists on built-in label __ecos__. Look on that as a promotion eCos OS.
If you think that my points are wrong, please, forget it.
Thanks for your comments.
Sergei
> Grant
>
>
>
>