On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 08:34, David Brownell wrote:
>> I guess we have very different approaches to looking at new software.
>> Since the structures (classes) are the skeleton
>
> There's a book titled something like "structs + methods = programs". :)
>
> When I'm analysing code to see how it wo
> I guess we have very different approaches to looking at new software.
> Since the structures (classes) are the skeleton
There's a book titled something like "structs + methods = programs". :)
When I'm analysing code to see how it works inside, I consider it
a flaw if I can't look through the
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 23:00, David Brownell wrote:
> [ offtopic threads #2, #3, ... ]
>
>> The reason why I did not plug arm11 into the existing arm
>> infrastructure and why we implemented etm as a tcl script
>
> "We" didn't see any such Tcl scripts posted though.
Yes, they are tailored to our
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 22:16, David Brownell wrote:
> [ Offtopic thread #1: "struct typedefs considered harmful" ]
>
>> struct foo
>>
>> and
>>
>> foo_t
>>
>> are both universally understood.
>
> I can't know what a "foo_t" is without looking it up,
> so it's not "universal" in any meaningful se
[ Offtopic thread #1: "struct typedefs considered harmful" ]
> struct foo
>
> and
>
> foo_t
>
> are both universally understood.
I can't know what a "foo_t" is without looking it up,
so it's not "universal" in any meaningful sense.
> "struct foo" however clutters the
> code, especially in
[ offtopic threads #2, #3, ... ]
> The reason why I did not plug arm11 into the existing arm
> infrastructure and why we implemented etm as a tcl script
"We" didn't see any such Tcl scripts posted though.
"We" want to see ETM support that doesn't need to be
rewritten from scratch for each new co
[ *ON* topic thread ]
> Your patch is purely about enforcing arbitrary syntax rules and in the
> process adding redundant code that obscures what is going on. For
> example consider:
>
> ...
> ARM11_HANDLER(bar),
> GENERIC_ARM_HANDLER(dog),
> ARM11_HANDLER(moo),
> ...
See, I count those *_HANDLE
> Take for example:
>
> fields[0].tap = etm_reg->jtag_info->tap;
> fields[0].num_bits = 32;
> fields[0].out_value = reg->value;
> fields[0].in_value = NULL;
> fields[0].check_value = NULL;
> fields[0].check_mask = NULL;
>
> fields[1].tap = etm_reg->jtag_info->tap;
> fields[1].num_bits = 7;
> fields
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 19:13, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 15 November 2009, Michael Bruck wrote:
>> >>> The macro is right above the table.
>
> Yep. At least, *now* it's right above.
This is the original commit:
http://openocd.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=openocd/openocd;a=blob;f
On Sunday 15 November 2009, Michael Bruck wrote:
> >>> The macro is right above the table.
Yep. At least, *now* it's right above.
> >> The problem with this sort of macros is that
... it doesn't really add anything. Even though
it *is* right above that table, you still have to
think more abou
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 16:49, Michael Bruck wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 16:39, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Michael Bruck wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:08, Øyvind Harboe
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:48 AM, David Brownell
wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 16:39, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Michael Bruck wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:08, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:48 AM, David Brownell wrote:
Three changes: remove ARM11_HANDLER() in favor of normal structure
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Michael Bruck wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:08, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:48 AM, David Brownell wrote:
>>> Three changes: remove ARM11_HANDLER() in favor of normal structure
>>
>> I like this cleanup. It makes it possible to read co
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:08, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:48 AM, David Brownell wrote:
>> Three changes: remove ARM11_HANDLER() in favor of normal structure
>
> I like this cleanup. It makes it possible to read code without
> special knowledge about ARM11 helper macros...
>
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:48 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> Three changes: remove ARM11_HANDLER() in favor of normal structure
I like this cleanup. It makes it possible to read code without
special knowledge about ARM11 helper macros...
--
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9
Three changes: remove ARM11_HANDLER() in favor of normal structure
initialization syntax; fix goofy indentation in that structure; and
don't needlessly export arm11_register_commands(), it's only called
through that method table.
---
src/target/arm11.c | 88 -
16 matches
Mail list logo
