Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix build with modern GCC #933

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 22, 2023
Merged

Fix build with modern GCC #933

merged 3 commits into from
Dec 22, 2023

Conversation

Forty-Bot
Copy link
Contributor

Building the msp430_GCC demo produces several errors and compiler warnings. These patches fix the errors and address the warnings.

@Forty-Bot Forty-Bot requested a review from a team as a code owner December 21, 2023 22:45
@kar-rahul-aws
Copy link
Member

Hi @Forty-Bot
Please let us know the version of the msp430-gcc compiler you are using. It will be useful to reproduce the issue you are facing.
Thanks.

@Forty-Bot
Copy link
Contributor Author

Forty-Bot commented Dec 22, 2023 via email

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 22, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (4e7ca2d) 93.78% compared to head (ca907b4) 93.78%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #933   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.78%   93.78%           
=======================================
  Files           6        6           
  Lines        3186     3186           
  Branches      885      885           
=======================================
  Hits         2988     2988           
  Misses         91       91           
  Partials      107      107           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 93.78% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@n9wxu
Copy link
Member

n9wxu commented Dec 22, 2023

@Forty-Bot can you bring this branch up to date? Then we can merge and address the other PR.

Apparently at some point in the past, GCC (or TI's GCC) used to define
these attributes. Define them ourselves so that we can compile the demo
application.
If a return type of a function is not specified, it defaults to int. Set
the return type of interrupts to void to avoid warnings.
portPOINTER_SIZE_TYPE defaults to uint32_t if undefined. Define it to
uint16_t, which is correct for this port.
Copy link

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

Kudos, no new issues were introduced!

0 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarCloud

@n9wxu n9wxu merged commit ec93432 into FreeRTOS:main Dec 22, 2023
16 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants