* 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
Removed the legacy FMUv4 define that was activating a nonexistent
pull up and on some HW driving the PPM_IN aka RC_IN aka SPEKTRUM_RX
to VDD.
Also detailed the connections of this pins for the board.
The simplest connection is RC_IN to a timer capture pin
and a UART.
In this case the UART_RX pin and just be left as is.
While the pin can be configured as the PPM_IN (Timer capture)
or as SPEKTRUM_RX_AS_GPIO_OUTPUT to use it as and GPIO to
Renamed the macros and defines to be more explicit as to what
Is being done and the sense of the parameters
We don't have C++ unsafe headers (anymore).
I added a test to fix_headers.sh that checks if certain "unsafe"
headers are ONLY included inside a __BEGIN_DECLS ... __END_DECLS
(because after all, they are unsafe), as well as checking that
no other header files are included inside such a block. The rationale
of the latter is that if a file is a C header and it declares
function prototypes (otherwise it doesn't matter) and is sometimes
included outside a __BEGIN_DECLS ... __END_DECLS block (from a C++
source file) then it has to be C++ safe and doesn't ever to be
included from inside such a block; while if a file is a C++ header
then obviously it should never be included from such a block.
fix_headers.sh subsequently found several safe headers to be
included from inside such a block, and those that were (apparently
in the past) unsafe were included only sometimes inside such a
block and often outside it. I had a look at those files and saw
that at least an attempt has been made to make them C++ safe,
but especially because they already are included OFTEN outside
a __BEGIN_DECLS ... __END_DECLS (from C++ source files) the
best decision seems to treat them as safe.
This is not risky: .c files that define such functions still
generate C-linkage for their functions. If a C++ unsafe C header
is included outside a __BEGIN_DECLS ... __END_DECLS block then
the only possible result would be an undefined reference to
a function with C++-linkage that will not exist. Aka, when
something links after this commit, then the commit was correct.
I did build all targets and they all linked.
Daniel Agar