On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 04:52:52PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 03:27:39PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > + newfile = dtc_open_file(filename, searchptr);
> > > + if (!newfile) {
> > > + yyerrorf("Couldn't open \"%s\": %s",
> > > + filename, strerror(errno));
> > > + exit(1);
> >
> > Use die() here, that's what it's for.
>
> die() doesn't print file and line information.
>
> > > + while (search) {
> > > + if (dtc_open_one(file, search->dir, fname))
> > > + return file;
> >
> > Don't we need a different case here somewhere for if someone specifies
> > an include file as an absolute path? Have I missed something?
>
> Yeah, I forgot about that, and sent another patch to fix it when I
> noticed (jdl had already pulled, so I didn't send an amended patch).
>
> > [snip]
> > > +struct search_path {
> > > + const char *dir; /* NULL for current directory */
> > > + struct search_path *prev, *next;
> > > +};
> >
> > I wouldn't suggest a doubly linked list here. Or at least not without
> > converting our many existing singly linked lists at the same time.
>
> The doubly-linked list is intended to make it easier to construct search
> path lists one-at-a-time from arguments in the proper order, without
> needing to reverse the list at the end.
We've already got that problem with a bunch of the lists we create
during parsing (we have several ugly add-to-end-of-singly-linked-list
functions). Going to doubly-linked lists might not be a bad idea, but
we should do it across the board, probably using the kernel's list.h
or something like it.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
