On Sunday 24 January 2010, simon qian wrote: > > Is that straightforward? It sounds like the right approach. > The patch is tested OK with Altera CPLD. Test output:
I'm not quite clear. This message included a different patch, "svf_all_content_between()_is_one_parameter.patch". Is this intended to replace the previous patch 2/2? That is, you want to see that "svf_all_content..." patch applied to current git, and nothing else? > > The usual solution for preprocessors is to replace all sequences > > of whitespace (including CR, LF, TAB, space, maybe more) with one > > single space. > > I haven't fixed this problem. And it will not be much difficult to fix it. > I can't test it on all CPLD/FPGAs, so just wait for BUG reporters. > SVF specification doesn't definitely demonstrate about this. If it works OK with the "skip whitespace" logic elsewhere, that's OK. Or as you said, wait for bug reports ... too bad the SVF spec is as weak as it is, in terms of basic lexical issues. > > If the $SUBJECT patch is omitted, what problem crops up? > Errors will occur saying that no taps is enabled, but svf command runs OK > when connect to telnet 4444 port. > See attached log.txt. The "no TAPs" stuff seems to come from not having configured them, else autoprobing would not have kicked in. Since SVF doesn't actually address TAPs, I'd expect it to behave regardless. What errors in *SVF* does this "svf_all_content..." patch fix? (The patch description should cover that stuff.) - Dave _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
