Ceva we just added this week also supports C99, so we just need to check
avr, misoc, or1k, z16 and z80.
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 1:35 PM Petro Karashchenko <
petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In addition I just checked latest GCC with HC12 support is 3.0.4 version.
> It have C99 integrated. Wi
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 1:15 PM Petro Karashchenko <
petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What about inline functions? Those are also a part on C99.
>
>
Change to normal function or macro.
> Are those old architectures checked by the CI?
Not all, arm/mips/risc-v/sim/x86/x86_64/xensa/r
In addition I just checked latest GCC with HC12 support is 3.0.4 version.
It have C99 integrated. Will check with AVR32, but will probably need some
help with others.
Best regards,
Petro
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022, 7:15 AM Petro Karashchenko <
petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What about i
Hi,
What about inline functions? Those are also a part on C99.
Are those old architectures checked by the CI? I mean do we have a proof
that those are still compilable with the latest release?
Best regards,
Petro
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022, 6:37 AM Xiang Xiao wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 6:29
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 6:29 AM Petro Karashchenko <
petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello team,
>
> Recently I mr. @Xiang Xiao had a discussion
> in one of the PR's related to C89 code compliance. Particularly related to
> initializing a structure by field names (designated initializers).
The only issue is that there are several architectures that only have c89
compilers available for them. Moving to C11 for the common code is
equivalent to saying that we will no longer support those architectures.
If we agree that we no longer need to support those architectures and that
it will n
Hello team,
Recently I mr. @Xiang Xiao had a discussion in
one of the PR's related to C89 code compliance. Particularly related to
initializing a structure by field names (designated initializers). Mr. @Xiang
Xiao pointed out that "for the common code it
is better to avoid C99 only features".
I
Hi Alan,
thanks for feedback.
Support will go into 'boards/arm/rp2040/pimoroni-tiny2040‘.
I’ll create PR once it’s done.
/Piet
> Am 07.01.2022 um 15:50 schrieb Alan Carvalho de Assis :
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> You can use RaspberryPico board, but I think it is a good idea to
> create a new directo
Hi Peter,
You can use RaspberryPico board, but I think it is a good idea to
create a new directory to Pimoroni Tiny2040 on NuttX because the
RaspberryPico could have different hardware features and different
pins usage.
So, if you create a new directory entry to Tiny2040 you can submit it
to main
Hi Tim,
You can enable to Stack Monitor to help you.
BR,
Alan
On 1/7/22, Tim wrote:
>>Any thoughts, anyone?
>
> Stack again. Not enough for the main thread. Guess I need to go back to
> school to learn about stacks :(
>
>
>
>Any thoughts, anyone?
Stack again. Not enough for the main thread. Guess I need to go back to school
to learn about stacks :(
Corrected subject …
/Piet
> Am 07.01.2022 um 14:55 schrieb Kalbus, Peter :
>
> Hi,
>
> I owned a Pimoroni Tiny2040 device.
> It’s an RP2040 based device with some interesting features:
>
> + small form factor (18x21.3mm)
> + 8 MByte Flash
> + RGB LED
> + Reset Button
> + USB-C
> - redu
Hi,
I owned a Pimoroni Tiny2040 device.
It’s an RP2040 based device with some interesting features:
+ small form factor (18x21.3mm)
+ 8 MByte Flash
+ RGB LED
+ Reset Button
+ USB-C
- reduced pin-header
I’d like to add the device based on the available RP2040 support.
It’s basically
Update on my issues.
msconn crashing was, as suggested, inadequate stack size. Default was 768, and
changing to 2048 and it no longer crashes. This was my first experience of
stack issues with NuttX.
I have now merged the 10.2 release and building and running OK.
Msconn now allows my board to
14 matches
Mail list logo
