Integration Candidate: 2020-11-10

[astrogeco]

Describe the contribution

Fix #103, Use MSG APIs
Fix #105, Remove non-portable OS_PACK

Testing performed
Bundle CI on astrogeco: https://travis-ci.com/github/astrogeco/cFS/builds/201769124

Expected behavior changes

PR #104 - Replaces deprecated SB API's with MSG

PR #109 - No impact, removes undesirable pattern use of OS_PACK

System(s) tested on

Additional context
Part of nasa/cFS#156

Third party code
None

Contributor Info - All information REQUIRED for consideration of pull request
@skliper

[jphickey]

Note - similar to nasa/ci_lab#60 - I am getting new warnings with this IC:

/home/joe/code/cfecfs/github/apps/sample_app/fsw/src/sample_app.c:171:18: error: taking address of packed member of ‘struct <anonymous>’ may result in an unaligned pointer value [-Werror=address-of-packed-member]
  171 |     CFE_MSG_Init(&SAMPLE_APP_Data.HkTlm.TlmHeader.BaseMsg, SAMPLE_APP_HK_TLM_MID, sizeof(SAMPLE_APP_Data.HkTlm));
      |                  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/home/joe/code/cfecfs/github/apps/sample_app/fsw/src/sample_app.c: In function ‘SAMPLE_APP_ReportHousekeeping’:
/home/joe/code/cfecfs/github/apps/sample_app/fsw/src/sample_app.c:334:25: error: taking address of packed member of ‘struct <anonymous>’ may result in an unaligned pointer value [-Werror=address-of-packed-member]
  334 |     CFE_SB_TimeStampMsg(&SAMPLE_APP_Data.HkTlm.TlmHeader.BaseMsg);
      |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/home/joe/code/cfecfs/github/apps/sample_app/fsw/src/sample_app.c:335:20: error: taking address of packed member of ‘struct <anonymous>’ may result in an unaligned pointer value [-Werror=address-of-packed-member]
  335 |     CFE_SB_SendMsg(&SAMPLE_APP_Data.HkTlm.TlmHeader.BaseMsg);
      |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors

[astrogeco]

@skliper
see above

[skliper]

I can fix, but do we want to resolve nasa/cFE#1009 first? Maybe back out the MSG commits and I'll refactor? Or I could fix for now so this can move forward and refactor later?