Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #2270, comment 9


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Feb 27, 2015, 1:19:08 AM (5 years ago)
Author:
Chris Johns
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #2270, comment 9

    initial v1  
    33I think any required user interaction needs a formal API that is supported from release to release. We need to be certain of the path we take to ensure it is maintained and does not break user code from release to release. I am not sure what effect if any this may have across RTEMS and other architectures. I suppose this means calls to _CPU_* etc should not be recommended and wrapped some how.
    44
    5 I am not entirely comfortable with the user being responsible for the audit process to determine the use of FP instructions. This fragments the effort across all LEON users possibly creating varying methods with I suspect varying levels of success. Users would like an operating system to manage the tricky detail meaning it should provide some support for users in this area if users are required to perform this task. It is a complex to carefully audit code and get it correct. If this approach is taken should RTEMS look at how to perform the audit ?
     5I am not entirely comfortable with the user being responsible for the audit process to determine the use of FP instructions. This fragments the effort across all LEON users possibly creating varying methods with I suspect varying levels of success. Users would like an operating system to manage the tricky detail meaning it should provide some support for users in this area if users are required to perform this task. It is complex to carefully audit code and get it correct. If this approach is taken should RTEMS look at how to perform the audit ?