On Jun 20, 2009, at 11:05 AM, David Brownell wrote:
On Saturday 20 June 2009, Duane Ellis wrote:I assert that is specifically *not* a goal of openocd to build and run openocd on *HOSTS* where the host basic compiler types "int" and "unsigned int" are *less*then* then 32bits. True of false?IMO: true. Not that I'd object to merging patches which support such hardware. But getting the package to run on such small systems -- probably, lower end microcontrollers -- is no walk in the park. And keeping the source base so it runs there would not be straightforward. _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
I agree that fixing all the portability issues isn't easy and isn't strictly necessary for any particular future release. I'd just like to see us progress in that direction when making fixes for data types. If you need to fix a printf for some other reason, use the correct format string or macro for the data type in use. It doesn't take any extra time and makes full portability much easier.
-- Rick Altherr kc8...@kc8apf.net"He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split it with him."
-- Unsigned
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
