> On Jun 26, 2017, at 18:44 , Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> If OK on principle, I'm not sure who is to approve the tiny config.gcc part.
> I'd think the tiny config.gcc bits would fall under the VxWorks umbrella
> and you can self-approve.
Wonderful :-) Thanks for confirming Jeff!
Olivier
On 06/26/2017 09:38 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch introduces common grounds for VxWorks 7 support.
>
> The main device is the introduction of a TARGET_VXWORKS7 macro which we
> leverage throughout the various vxworks.h / vxworks.c files, common or cpu
&
> On Jun 26, 2017, at 17:56 , Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> On 06/26/2017 11:38 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>
>> Nathan does this work for you ?
>
> certainly,
Great!
>> If OK on principle, I'm not sure who is to approve the tiny config.gcc part.
>
> You :) (it's in a vxworks-specific fragment,
On 06/26/2017 11:38 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
Nathan does this work for you ?
certainly,
If OK on principle, I'm not sure who is to approve the tiny config.gcc part.
You :) (it's in a vxworks-specific fragment, I think the Changelog
format for that kind of thing is:
* config.gcc (tri
Hello,
This patch introduces common grounds for VxWorks 7 support.
The main device is the introduction of a TARGET_VXWORKS7 macro which we
leverage throughout the various vxworks.h / vxworks.c files, common or cpu
specific.
We have done several CPU specific ports already, and this scheme works
