Even no people complain about the inline usage, but it's always good to isolate the inline keyword in compiler.h like others.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 4:37 AM Petro Karashchenko < petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Following the discussion related to the "inline" keyword usage in common > code. I have done draft changes in > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/5201 with an approach that > possibly can be used to get rid of "inline" in common code. > But I'm not even sure if this is needed to anyone, since there are no > reports about compilation issues for any of the supported platforms. This > means that the platforms are either not used (projects not updated to the > latest NuttX release) or all used compilers support "inline" (and maybe > C99). > I would appreciate it if people can give feedback should I continue > changing 7000 other places, or just drop this activity. > > Best regards, > Petro > > пн, 10 січ. 2022 р. о 17:17 Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> > пише: > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:15 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of the Z80, would it be possible to run NuttX in a Grant > > Searle > > > > / RC2014 platform with a 8k ROM /56k RAM split, or would any attempt > > > > require banked memory? > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if it is possible or not. I don't know if NuttX is viable > > on > > > any CPU limited to a 64Kb address space. In their day, those 8-bit > CPUs > > > were programmed in highly tuned assembly language. it is hard to > imagine > > > running an OS that is almost as big as the addressable memory and being > > > able to do anything meaningful. NuttX may have outgrown these > platforms. > > > > > > I think that z80 architecture support is still important because there > > are > > > so many derivatives from z80, like that FPGA in the ZX Spectrum Next ( > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum_Next). That FPGA runs the > z80 > > > with a extended address space using an MMU similar to the z180 but with > > > smaller pages. Other derivatives like the z300 and the ez80 just > > support a > > > wider address space. I have done a couple of ezo ports recently (like > > > http://z20x.computer/). > > > > > > I appreciate this discussion about protecting the NuttX supported > > platforms. > > > > I think non-arch-specific code should stick with C89 and we should not > > be too eager to remove architectures that have these needs. > > > > It's not too hard to tell people that non-arch-specific code needs to be > > C89. > > > > We can catch it more easily in precheck by passing the C89 flag to the > > compiler. > > > > Only in the case where an architecture is incomplete, unmaintained, > > and NuttX isn't really viable for it anymore, should we consider > > removing it. > > > > We should have a rule that removing an arch should require a process > > that makes it highly likely that we'd hear from any users who consider > > that arch important. > > > > For example, get the word out for some period of time and solicit > > feedback. If no feedback, then mark the arch deprecated, produce > > build-time warnings, require users to activate some kind of > > CONFIG_DEPRECATED_ARCH to use it. In other words, do things to get > > their attention. And then, have a mandatory waiting period to allow > > enough time to either attract maintainers or be able to declare the > > arch dead with a clear conscience. > > > > > > So many RTOS are just for arm. > > > > The whole point why I adopted NuttX is because of being able to move > > my applications from one arch to another. > > > > > Originally, NuttX was focused on the hobbyist, DIYer, and > retro-computing > > > enthusiast. But nowadays, it is dominated by businesses with business > > value > > > systems that are sometimes not compatible with the needs or interests > of > > > hobbyists. That is why there is such a long discussion in the > > > INVIOLABLE.md under "All Users Matter." That was essentially the > > contract > > > I made when I agreed to give the OS to the community. But it is going > to > > > take some strong leadership to keep those values since the OS is > > controlled > > > completely by businesses now and businesses tend to think only of their > > own > > > needs. > > > > We need more hobbyist/DIYer committers and PMC. > > > > We need a short and professional presentation, targeted specifically > > to business users, that clearly explains why it is in their best > > interests to play nice with the community. > > > > Cheers, > > Nathan > > >
