From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <47ECC5C1.8040405@domain.hid> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:17:37 +0100 From: Philippe Gerum MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20080325224919.582BD243A7@domain.hid> <47EA14F7.7040004@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <47EA14F7.7040004@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: Philippe Gerum Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Xenomai/SOLO - RTOS emulation for standard Linux Reply-To: rpm@xenomai.org List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Roland Stigge Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Roland Stigge wrote: > > So if we are talking about Xenomai 3 in the order of years, Xenomai/SOLO > as a separate package seems worth considering if it matures reasonably. > It is not in the order of years, but likely weeks, to get the four traditional RTOS emulators currently available from 2.x running on top of the SOLO core (Btw, I've just committed the early version of the pSOS emulator to the GIT tree which still needs heavy testing though). Before packaging this, I would recommend to wait for significant test suites to be available for all of them; I guess this should be the case by the end of May, if the current pace can be sustained. > The other "desktop suitable" approach is the simulator. Both > Xenomai/SOLO and the simulator are good candidates for inclusion in the > OS distribution since (apart from certain kernel requirements) they can > be provided as universal binary packages in userspace. > > The problem with xenosim is its dependency upon gcc-2.95.6 sources. > Since Debian packages must provide the complete sources for building the > binary packages or alternatively/additionally have build dependencies > satisfied by other (binary) Debian packages in the distribution, this is > not an easy task (without gcc 2.95.x being in Debian anymore). One way > to go could be utilizing a newer GCC (4.x) instead of 2.95.x, but that > doesn't work with current xenosim. Is it worth it to put porting effort > into this spot? > The simulator is really a nice tool, but its code instrumenter was written ten years ago as a patch against egcs-1.0, then subsequently upgraded a number of times, up to 2.95.3. Unfortunately, upgrading this patch to gcc 3.x or even 4.x would be a very significant work, because I hooked the instrumentation engine right into the C/C++ parser stage, and this area of code has been very deeply refactored over the years (actually, even replaced IIRC). To my knowledge, only two people "officially" use the simulator, specifically for debugging the Xenomai core, i.e. Gilles and myself, so there is not much traction on this side. We just grab some outdated box on which we can rebuild xenosim, and we live with it this way. I feel it's sort of a shame, since IMHO, event-driven simulation is just the ultimate way for efficient debugging and modelling real-time behaviour, but well, it would really be a project on its own to revamp it, and lack of time bites everyone. -- Philippe.