On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 5:30 PM Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> That would be -1 for me too.
>
> Reason 1 from Nathan could change my vote.
>
> But reason 2 would be a shame. We have one of the few a RTOS that
> support CPUs outside ARM.
>
>
> TBH, there is no solid technical reason to change this rule. Most of the
> things mentioned in this comment are syntactic sugar that can be
> supported with macros.
>
>
It isn't always possible, here is an examples:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/6926/files#diff-c8b3d3e48a21d03758b14794aaba6c9d818e349a2ce2bdc873f529daf5746abfR315-R328
Functions which return some value are hard to convert to macro in no
trivial case.
But inlining of simple and frequently used functions is a very important
method to improve the performance.


> Sebastien
>
> Le 30/08/2022 à 03:18, Nathan Hartman a écrit :
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 7:54 PM Alan Rosenthal <alan.rosent...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> What needs to be done to open the discussion to consider changing the
> >> rules?
> >>
> >> Also please see a very detailed comment on the github issue here by
> >> @robertlipe:
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/6896#issuecomment-1227971503
> >>
> >
> > Basically what Greg said: motivate someone of the PPMC to call a vote.
> >
> > Just FYI, based on what Byron points out with regard to the Zilog
> families
> > needing C89 (and possibly other archs that weren't mentioned), I would
> > probably vote -1 unless either:
> >
> > 1) there is a toolchain, which is complete (not "experimental") that
> > supports these platforms, or:
> >
> > 2) someone can convince me that no one cares about these architectures
> > anymore, such as if it's shown that NuttX already contains significant
> > breakage on these platforms that prevents them from working anyway, no
> one
> > has complained, and it has gone unfixed for several years
> >
> > If 1 or 2 (or both) I'm okay with it. But if changing the rules will
> leave
> > users in the dust, then I'm not okay with it.
> >
> > Just my thoughts... I'll be glad to hear the thoughts of others.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nathan
> >
>

Reply via email to