jvalenzuela

Sorry for the ambiguity; I was referring to the back-end interface between the target and QSPY host application. I was curious as to what motivated the use of TCP instead of UDP for this communication channel. Thanks, Jason Valenzuela

I am looking into enabling QSpy on a QP/C v8.1.4 test application running on a Linux target with the posix-qv port. A non-blocking UDP socket seems the natural choice for the target-host interface, yet the QSpy host application and qs_port.c implementation employ TCP. Is there a reason TCP is used here? Thank you, Jason Valenzuela

I have use for a queue to defer, at most, a single event. Since the QEQueue structure itself holds a single event in its frontEvt member, hence why the realized queue length is storage_size + 1, is it supported to initialize a queue with no storage, e.g., QEQueue(&q, NULL, 0)? The source for QEQueue_init seems to support this in the qLen > 0 evaluation. If so, perhaps explicitly notating this option in the QEQueue_init function documentation may be merited. Thank you, Jason Valenzuela

Upon looking at the source, I think this should be frontEvt.

See attached screenshot from the QP/C 8.1.4 online API referference; looks like possibly a missing space.

Yes, GCC 4.1.0 is quite long in the tooth. Unfortunately, this proof-of-concept project is using older hardware available on eBay. The build environment is fully provided by the target hardware manufacturer as an Eclipse-based IDE with a PowerPC cross-compiler, glibc, and API libraries to match the OS and runtime services on their device. The target is Linux, but the application must link with their libraries to function, so I'm very hesitant to mess around with upgrading the compiler at this point...

I'm working on integrating QP/C v8.1.4 into a manufacturer-provided build environment based on GCC 4.1.0. That compiler doesn't recognize the _Noreturn attribute, which is probably due to the compiler's age. I think the best option at the moment is to define Q_NORETURN as void, however, I noticed it is defined in two places: qsafe.h and qp_port.h(I'm using the posix-qv port). Is this duplication intended? Thank you, Jason Valenzuela

I was thinking about how to implement some type of automated testing using the QSPY...