This is the mail archive of the ecos-devel@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Targets with overrides


On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 07:11, John Dallaway wrote:
> Hi Gary
> 
> One of the reasons we have avoided this technique in public sources is that 
> the implementation is not fully integrated with the rest of the CDL 
> library. For example, the values you provide for options you override do 
> not become the CDL default values. The configtool therefore indicates that 
> the options have been changed and allows you to restore the default value 
> which would effectively change the target and confuse the "run tests" 
> capability of the tool. Without improved integration, I would prefer to 
> avoid the use of this technique in the public repository.
> 

I understand, but I think that the potential benefits far outweigh the
problems.  If someone wants to mess with options that have been 
inferred, then he's asking for trouble anyway.  There are already many
other such inferences happening that are not part of target descriptions
anyway.

In the case I'm most interested in, I have a set of platforms which 
share the same HAL but which need very specific setups to run properly.
As is, we have to document the details of how to set this up which can
be sources of errors.  If I had a target which described the platform
explicitly, then this source of errors is mitigated.  I'd much rather
live with the potential that someone *could* mess up "run tests" in
the ConfigTool than a more serious situation where he can easily turn
his unit into a brick by missing a step in the setups.

> John Dallaway
> eCosCentric Limited
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Thomas
> Date: Thursday 02 Oct 2003 13:44
> Subject: Targets with overrides
> 
> > I'd like to add some targets to ecos.db which contain explicit CDL
> > overrides (e.g. to force a particular board configuration).  I know
> > in the past we avoided doing this because the public tools might not
> > handle it, but it's now many years on and the tools are all new enough.
> >
> > Is there any dissension to my making such a change?
-- 
Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
MLB Associates


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]