Perfect! Let's do this as time permits. -----Original Message----- From: Alan Carvalho de Assis [mailto:acas...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:09 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Should TASK_NAME_SIZE be changed in most configs?
Yes, I think nsh-debug will make its intention clear. On 11/23/20, Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > It has always been the policy to disable debug features in all shipped > configurations. They were considered production configurations not > debug configurations. > > Configurations that have debug enable could, perhaps, be named like > nsh-debug. > > On 11/23/2020 5:38 AM, Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote: >> I think we need to have a good compromise between features and size. >> >> For instance, the default "nsh" demo should be small, basically just >> the terminal and minimum support to its commands to work, like the >> PROCFS to get 'free' working. >> >> Also keep in mind that for debugging purpose we need to "Suppress >> Optimization" that also will increase its size. >> >> So, I think it could be a good idea to have a predefined config for >> debug purpose, instead forcing the "nsh" to be debugging enabled ready >> by default, that will increase its size and send a wrong message for >> people testing NuttX for the very first time. >> >> See the mbedOS for example: >> >> https://os.mbed.com/blog/entry/Optimizing-memory-usage-in-mbed-OS-52/ >> >> They went into 'rabbit's hole' to solve an issue that we don't have >> yet, but if nobody keep an eye on it soon we will have. >> >> BR, >> >> Alan >> >> On 11/23/20, David Sidrane <david.sidr...@nscdg.com> wrote: >>>> Do you think this is due to the.... >>> I would say so. >>> >>> I agree better debugging out of the box is a good way to go. We have to >>> weigh that against the past goal of: Minimum size image. It was a first >>> impression thing. This was why debug had to be tuned off in all Kconfig. >>> >>> The first question to ask is do we as a group feel still that the size >>> of >>> the canned config built images should be as small as possible to >>> showcase >>> NuttX ability to be small? >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Matias N. [mailto:mat...@imap.cc] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 5:18 PM >>> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org >>> Subject: Should TASK_NAME_SIZE be changed in most configs? >>> >>> While trying the integration of openocd with NuttX it was complaining >>> due >>> to "name" not being defined, which happens when CONFIG_TASK_NAME_SIZE == >>> 0. Looking at sched/Kconfig the default for this symbol is 31, yet many >>> configs have this set to zero. Do you think this is due to the default >>> having changed at some point or is this done to minimize memory use in >>> all >>> these boards? If the latter, maybe we need to make the default depend on >>> CONFIG_DEFAULT_SMALL and update all configs that do not have this set. >>> >>> Best, >>> Matias >>> >
