pussuw commented on PR #16019:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16019#issuecomment-2737552287
> I'm wondering if this should be set globally / via compiler flag?
>
> If someone defines a for loop explicitly, I'm pretty sure the user WANTS
TO EXPLICITLY run the for loop, inste
xiaoxiang781216 merged PR #16019:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16019
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@nu
alexcekay commented on PR #16019:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16019#issuecomment-2754227835
Hi @raiden00pl, sure. I squashed the changes into a single commit.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and u
raiden00pl commented on PR #16019:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16019#issuecomment-2754086748
Could you please squash changes into a single commit?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL a
alexcekay commented on PR #16019:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16019#issuecomment-2742785557
Hi @raiden00pl,
interesting idea! Yes, this will also work, and I also considered wrapping
it. I chose this variant because it is more explicit and follows a style
similar to oth
xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #16019:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16019#discussion_r2010088398
##
include/nuttx/compiler.h:
##
@@ -1226,6 +1226,14 @@
# undef CONFIG_HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE
#endif
+/* Decorators */
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_RAMFUNCS
+# define o
raiden00pl commented on PR #16019:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16019#issuecomment-2745049669
@alexcekay If no one has anything against the decorator, I think that's what
we should do. This approach is nicer (my subjective opinion, so it doesn't
matter much), but more important
nuttxpr commented on PR #16019:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16019#issuecomment-2736424850
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback
here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues)
Yes, this PR meets the NuttX requirements. The summary
alexcekay opened a new pull request, #16019:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16019
## Summary
Add `no_builtin` for `memcpy/memset` to the startup code of boards
with `CONFIG_ARCH_RAMFUNCS`, because certain compilers call `memcpy/memset`
instead of the explicit `for` loo
