Hi all,
please welcome Nicolas Pitre as a maintainer!
Besides having git access, I don't expect much to change. He
has provided first class advice and patches in the past and
we hope that he'll continue to do so!
--
Øyvind Harboe
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 00
http:
Bugfix the read side of flash protection:
- read the right register(s)!
- handle more than 64K
- record the results in the right places
- don't display garbage.
Partially bugfix the write side:
- use 2KB lock regions instead of 1KB pages (!)
- validate input range
- don't try to _remove_ pr
Freddie Chopin a écrit :
> Why everyone sees only the bad sides of C++ and completely forgets the
> good ones? Templates? Stronger compilation-time-error-checks? Easier
> error handling? Easier abstraction? Easier polymorphism? Easier - well -
> everything?
>
>
I will never use C++ in my embe
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 December 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > This is wrong for Feroceon and Dragonite which have only one of them.
> > In that case arm7_9->wp_available_max is initialized to 1 in the
> > target_create method, but the above message is still
On Wednesday 09 December 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 December 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > This is wrong for Feroceon and Dragonite which have only one of them.
> > In that case arm7_9->wp_available_max is initialized to 1 in the
> > target_create method, but the above messag
On Wednesday 09 December 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> This is wrong for Feroceon and Dragonite which have only one of them.
> In that case arm7_9->wp_available_max is initialized to 1 in the
> target_create method, but the above message is still wrong and
> misleading.
OK, got patch? :)
I gu
This commit adds in src/target/embeddedice.c a plain
LOG_INFO("%s: hardware has 2 breakpoints or watchpoints", ...
This is wrong for Feroceon and Dragonite which have only one of them.
In that case arm7_9->wp_available_max is initialized to 1 in the
target_create method, but the above
On Wednesday 09 December 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
>
> > And C is amenable to object oriented programming just fine.
>
> Now replace "C" with "assembler" - this will still be perfectly true,
> but are there any sane ppl who write software for PC in assembly?
To state the obvious: OpenOCD can
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre pisze:
> > What limitations?
> >
> > I never considered the C language to bare any limitations what so ever.
> > You can do much more in C, and with way more control and performance,
> > than with most other languages. The inconvenient
This discussion comes up every so often. I don't see
that anything has changed.
There hasn't been any interest from the maintainers to switch and
it would be a major undertaking to do this. Getting the consensus
and convincing everybody to come on board would be a huge
undertaking in itself. You c
Freddie Chopin a écrit :
> The "overhead" of C++ is also doubtful - when you know "how to do it"
> the overhead will be 0. BTW you also need to know "how to do it" to
> write C++-in-C, so...
... and this overhead is 0 when you know "how to do it", isn't it? :)
More seriously: I don't favor C ove
Nicolas Pitre pisze:
> What limitations?
>
> I never considered the C language to bare any limitations what so ever.
> You can do much more in C, and with way more control and performance,
> than with most other languages. The inconvenient is that C requires
> better programming skills.
>
>
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Pieter Conradie wrote:
> I get the impression that you (the developers) are butting your head
> against the limitations of C.
What limitations?
I never considered the C language to bare any limitations what so ever.
You can do much more in C, and with way more control and
>
> Please search on mailing list archive, people already lost too much
> time discussion about it.
>
I second this. There was a nice discussion about how the developers of
OpenOCD tend to be more comfortable in C because of the embedded work they
do. In addition, OpenOCD is built to run on some
Hi Pieter,
On 12/9/09, Pieter Conradie wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I just glance at the mailing list chatter, so please excuse if my
> suggestion/comment is completely off the wall/misinformed/completely wrong
> and please ignore it if that's the case.
>
> I get the impression that you (the de
Hi everyone,
I just glance at the mailing list chatter, so please excuse if my
suggestion/comment is completely off the wall/misinformed/completely wrong and
please ignore it if that's the case.
I get the impression that you (the developers) are butting your head against
the limitations of C
On Tuesday 08 December 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> > From Section B.7 "Determining the core and system state" of "ARM9E-S
> > Core Technical Reference Manual" (DDI0240A.pdf):
> >
> > | Note
> > |
> > | Because all Thumb instructions are only 16 bits long,
>
> Maybe back then they were! [
17 matches
Mail list logo
