You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
FreeRTOS-Plus-POSIX uses the static versions of semaphore/mutex API functions. These functions only are available if configSUPPORT_STATIC_ALLOCATION is 1. At a minimum this should be listed as a dependency, but ideally this library would work with dynamic allocation as well, as there is a bit of overhead required to use static allocation.
If there is a straightforward way of converting this to use the dynamic versions of the API functions, I'd appreciate learning about that.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
At a minimum this should be listed as a dependency, but ideally this library would work with dynamic allocation as well, as there is a bit of overhead required to use static allocation.
Agree that it should be listed as a dependency. What do you mean by overhead of using static allocation?
If there is a straightforward way of converting this to use the dynamic versions of the API functions, I'd appreciate learning about that.
It would require you to change the implementation of semaphore and mutex. What is your motivation to do that?
Also, what is your motivation of using these wrappers and not using FreeRTOS native APIs directly?
The overhead I'm referring to is needing to implement vApplicationGetIdleTaskMemory() and vApplicationGetTimerTaskMemory().
The reason for using posix is because I inherited the project and some components of it run both on the stm32 we are using as well as in some Mac/pc utilities . I guess the previous author thought it would be easier if the threading were portable.
FreeRTOS-Plus-POSIX uses the static versions of semaphore/mutex API functions. These functions only are available if configSUPPORT_STATIC_ALLOCATION is 1. At a minimum this should be listed as a dependency, but ideally this library would work with dynamic allocation as well, as there is a bit of overhead required to use static allocation.
If there is a straightforward way of converting this to use the dynamic versions of the API functions, I'd appreciate learning about that.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: