Remove default behaviour of FREERTOS_HEAP.

[conara]

To build a complete static application (configSUPPORT_DYNAMIC_ALLOCATION set to 0) an ugly workaround is necessary. When FREERTOS_HEAP (CMake variable) is not set, heap 4 is automatically selected in the current CMake. Without this change I got the following error:

/home/boris/workspace/base/external/freertos/portable/MemMang/heap_4.c:51:6: error: #error This file must not be used if configSUPPORT_DYNAMIC_ALLOCATION is 0 51 | #error This file must not be used if configSUPPORT_DYNAMIC_ALLOCATION is 0

For additional context, please read: https://forums.freertos.org/t/i-cannot-build-a-complete-static-application-bug-or-feature/9553

---

I opted to modify the default behavior of the FREERTOS_HEAP CMake variable because I believe it's essential for the user to be conscious of the chosen heap implementation. While another option was to introduce a magic variable to prevent automatic heap implementation selection, I find this approach to be the most straightforward and logical one.

Checklist:

• I have tested my changes. No regression in existing tests.
• I have modified and/or added unit-tests to cover the code changes in this Pull Request.

Related Issue

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

[jputcu]

I'm facing the same issue. Found some older related tickets: #594 and #595

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (7562ebc) 93.64% compared to head (550f0ab) 93.64%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #807   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.64%   93.64%           
=======================================
  Files           6        6           
  Lines        2549     2549           
  Branches      608      608           
=======================================
  Hits         2387     2387           
  Misses        107      107           
  Partials       55       55           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	93.64% <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.

[archigup]

Hey, thanks for the PR! We're discussing what the best way to solve this issue is, and will get back to you.

[conara]

Hey, thanks for the PR! We're discussing what the best way to solve this issue is, and will get back to you.

Can you give me an update on this point?

[ActoryOu]

Hi @conara,
Sorry for late response. We'll get on this by next Friday.

Thanks.

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication