Re: Undefined reference to longjmp/setjmp

Since setjmp and longjmp need be called from userspace, the location is moved to: libs/libc/machine/arch Here is the related issue and PR: https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/2478 https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/3315 On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 2:51 AM David S. Alessio wr

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Hi, I'll answer a few question that came up several times about build systems co-existing. My previous answer was about co-existing them as a way to satisfy both set of users, which I don't think is the right approach. However, as a transition approach it does makes sense to me. This is technical

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 3:07 PM Matias N. wrote: > I will leave up to PPMC to decide whether a call to a vote is > necessary/useful, but > to me the community response is now quite clear. Also, voting based on > majority > would not really consider that such a change actually requires significant

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Quoting Sebastien: > It it's not broken, dont fix it. > - it works for its intended purposes > - it is pretty complex > - ALL USERS have become used to it Sebastien, what tools are you using for development? Make has such poor support for any tooling. Some IDE's understand it partially, some not

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Trying to be fair, (and leaving my personal preference aside). My machine takes less than 6 seconds to perform a clean build (with ccache). If a windows machine takes "minutes", then maybe the build system can be considered broken... On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 23:47 TimH wrote: > My view on this...b

Re: Undefined reference to longjmp/setjmp

Lua has been ported to NuttX several times.   If you Google for "lua+NuttX" you find lots of hits, many from https://nuttx.yahoogroups.narkive.com. This is from 2018:  https://github.com/tokoro10g/lua-nuttx We really ought to talk to the Lua team and see if we can upstream the changes.  Unsup

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

My view on this...bit of a ramble. I'm new to Nuttx, and have a new/custom board I'm porting it to. Nuttx didn't play nicely/easily with either Windows or MAC for me and I eventually went to Linux; and have no regrets as life is so much easier as result. A full build takes no more than 10secon

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

> but to me the community response is now quite clear Is it? Six people on GitHub (+ some here?) provided positive feedback. While only one "hates it", and three more dislike it (mostly due to the huge undertaking and risk such a change requires). As said, I am not experienced in cmake, to prope

Re: Undefined reference to longjmp/setjmp

There is also a configuration option that must be set to use the setjmp in NuttX.  It is in the top-level Kconfig as I recall. You don't get a compilation error so you are probably including the toolchain's setjmp.h.  So most likely you have -nostdlib or something like that on the command line

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

> On Jun 9, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Brennan Ashton wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 11:04 AM Fotis Panagiotopoulos > wrote: > >> For me, cmake would be a no. >> The reasons are greatly outlined by Sebastien. >> >> However, I am not very experienced with it. (I just never liked it...) >> Are there

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Hi Brennan and Matias, I think it is worth the effort to get the remaining boards converted to cmake, but I think we need to find an easy way to keep Makefile and CMake in sync. Otherwise people will have double work adding support for two building systems. I don't know if it is easy to create a

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 11:04 AM Fotis Panagiotopoulos wrote: > For me, cmake would be a no. > The reasons are greatly outlined by Sebastien. > > However, I am not very experienced with it. (I just never liked it...) > Are there any hard advantages that would justify such a migration? > > Are there

Re: Undefined reference to longjmp/setjmp

Also, if you need/want help with getting Lua to run on NuttX, let me know. I had Lua 5.1.4 on NuttX (5 maybe it was) a long time ago. I believe I submitted a patch to add it, but I can’t find it now. The addition of Lua to NuttX was in the form of a subdirectory in apps containing only a Make

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

As I mentioned before, the linked issue already explains the rationale behind the proposal. I'm not looking for doing any more convincing as I rather leave others to express their position. On a more general note, after today's e-mail numerous responses to the thread opposing to the change were gi

Re: Undefined reference to longjmp/setjmp

Hello, Foti,I wrote setjmp/longjmp for armv7-m some time ago.  The code should be in file: arch/arm/src/armv7-m/gnu/up_setjmp.SIf not, it’s attached here.Cheers,-david up_setjmp.S.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data On Jun 9, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Fotis Panagiotopoulos wrote

Re: Nimble on U-blox Nina B112 (Nrf52832)

Hi Matias, No, it´s referent to an app example, if you some example to access the NIMBLE on Nuttx Enviado do Email para Windows 10

Undefined reference to longjmp/setjmp

Hi everyone! I just started adding Lua to my NuttX-based project, but I have some problems with it. I am getting undefined references to longjmp/setjmp. I am using an STM32F4 and GCC: arm-none-eabi-gcc (GNU Tools for Arm Embedded Processors 9-2019-q4-major) 9.2.1 20191025 (release) [ARM/arm-9-bra

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

For me, cmake would be a no. The reasons are greatly outlined by Sebastien. However, I am not very experienced with it. (I just never liked it...) Are there any hard advantages that would justify such a migration? Are there things that can only be done in cmake, or that are so much easier that it

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

> > Maintaining two build systems in parallel does not really make sense to > me. There should be only one and used and maintained by the community. > We cannot get rid of the make in one commit. If we want CMake, it should grow alongside the make. ср, 9 июн. 2021 г. в 14:32, Ken Pettit : > My

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

My opinion: CMake is horrible. Don't do it. It's hard to use for beginners, and hard to use for anyone who isn't just a strong advocate for it. Just my opionion. Ken On 6/9/21 6:46 AM, Gregory Nutt wrote: I think that there a lot of people like myself who are opposed to the CMake change b

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Hello, I agree with Sebastien. There is no problem to solve here but potential for massive breakage and extra burden on companies using NuttX to develop real products. Actual NuttX users all have their own build and CI verify infrastructure accustomed to current NuttX build system and doing th

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Opponents should raise their voice. They are part of this "community" and have the ability to weight in this decision. My case may be different.  It is difficult to relinquish control of a project and I am training myself to not care so much about anything that happens in the project (wh

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, at 11:08, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 10:01 AM > wrote: > > > > I like the cmake idea but we should also consider that cmake will have > > implications on all projects that use the NuttX as a base for the SDK or > > custom

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 10:01 AM wrote: > > I like the cmake idea but we should also consider that cmake will have > implications on all projects that use the NuttX as a base for the SDK or > custom projects. > > All those projects are using the old make system and such a change will have > a hu

RE: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

I like the cmake idea but we should also consider that cmake will have implications on all projects that use the NuttX as a base for the SDK or custom projects. All those projects are using the old make system and such a change will have a huge impact for them. Regards Alin -Original Me

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Opponents should raise their voice. They are part of this "community" and have the ability to weight in this decision. Sebastien Le 09/06/2021 à 15:46, Gregory Nutt a écrit : I think that there a lot of people like myself who are opposed to the CMake change but are remain silent to let the c

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

I think that there a lot of people like myself who are opposed to the CMake change but are remain silent to let the community make the decision.  I suspect that the advocates of CMake are having a larger voice in the decision. On 6/9/2021 7:38 AM, Sebastien Lorquet wrote: Hello, I believe in

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Hello, I believe in a stong principle, applied successfully numerous time in my embedded development company: It it's not broken, dont fix it. That applies precisely to this change. The build system we have have the following characteristics -it works for its intended purposes -it is pre

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Hi Alan, On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, at 10:12, Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote: > Hi Matias, > > I think according to Apache rules anyone can call for vote. Ok. I would imagine that for a vote to have any purpose there still needs to be some discussion first. Or is it ok to have the discussion on the vote

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Hi Matias, I think according to Apache rules anyone can call for vote. I'm working in the ESP32(C3, S2) cmake port and probably will need your review. Moving from Makefile to CMake is not a simple task and it is prone for failure, OpenOCD tried it around 2008 or so and it didn't get to much trac

Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake

Hi everyone, this thread has received little engagement from the community in general, for a change with such impact on daily use of NuttX for everyone. While there was positive feedback on GH and a few people have expressed more interest, not much has really happened. Meanwhile, the backlog of c

Re: Nimble on U-blox Nina B112 (Nrf52832)

Hi Miguel, if you have questions regarding using nimBLE I suggest you go to their support channels as this is really not NuttX related. Best, Matias On Tue, Jun 8, 2021, at 14:01, Miguel Wisintainer wrote: > Hi Matias > > Have you some example to make the scan ? > > Enviado do Email