* NuttX cmake
* px4_macros:Pass the stringified predicate as second arg to static assert
CC_ASSERT mapes to the c++ static_assert or provides the same
funtionality for c via the other macros. The c++ static assert
takes 2 argumants the prdicate and a message. This fixes the
lacking second argument.
* Updated nuttx and apps submodule to upstream nuttx 7.21+==master
This is the latest uptake of upstream nuttx and apps.
* ROMFS generate with xxd instead of objcopy
* delete nuttx-patches
* NuttX update submodules to latest px4_nuttx-master
* fix nuttx apps and board dependency
* docker_run update to latest container 2017-08-29
* cmake ROMFS portable sed usage
* NuttX update submodules to latest px4_nuttx-master
It makes more sense to set the optimization flags on a platform basis
instead of individually for each module. This allows for different
optimization options for SITL, NuttX, Snapdragon, etc.
The existing orb_advert_t use thoughout the code sometimes tries
to treat it as a file descriptor and there are checks for < 0
and ::close calls on orb_advert_t types which is an invalid use
of an object pointer, which is what orb_advert_t really is.
Initially I had changed the -1 initializations to 0 but it was
suggested that this should be nullptr. That was a good recommendation
but the definition of orb_advert_t had to change to void * because
you cannot initialize a uintptr_t as nullptr.
Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois <charlebm@gmail.com>
The calls to orb_advertise were being mishandled throughout the code.
There were ::close() calls on memory pointers, there were checks
against < 0 when it is a pointer to a object and values larger than
0x7ffffffff are valid. Some places orb_advert_t variables were
being initialized as 0 other places as -1.
The orb_advert_t type was changed to uintptr_t so the pointer value
would not be wrapped as a negative number. This was causing a failure
on ARM.
Tests for < 0 were changed to == 0 since a null pointer is the valid
representation for error, or uninitialized.
Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois <charlebm@gmail.com>
when using INCREMENT() the counter would temporarily read equal to
limit, which could cause an issue if the task is preempted.
(this macro should be in a common header, though which header?)
Daniel Agar