Hello Wolfgang / Albert / others,
On 10-10-14 16:04, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
Hello Wolfgang,
On 10-10-14 14:22, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
It does not mention puts() vs. printf(), if it is indeed meant to be
u-boot policy.
This is not just U-Boot philosophy, but something that I would
consider a matt
Dear Jeroen,
In message <20141011150346.150c0383...@gemini.denx.de> i wrote:
>
> Which is "better"? A is obviously much shorter and more elegant; but
> B is much more robust - A will happily crash your system when you try
> to print a string like "s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s" (not to mention that
> th
Dear Jeroen,
In message <54384450.3000...@myspectrum.nl> you wrote:
>
> If you ask to disable it, it is good if it does so, don't see a problem
> with that. Anyway, it is not an u-boot issue, anything below -O2 is not
> supported anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Gcc certainly does this
Dear Jeroen,
In message <5437e778.3050...@myspectrum.nl> you wrote:
>
> calling printf("%s\n", "string") gets translated into puts by the
> compiler. There should be no difference in the binary.
Interesting, I didn't know that. Is this somewhere documented?
Is there any comprehensive list of s
Hi Jeroen,
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 22:40:48 +0200, Jeroen Hofstee
wrote:
> Hello Albert,
>
> On 10-10-14 21:51, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > Hi Jeroen,
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:09:19 +0200, Jeroen Hofstee
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Marek,
> >>
> >> On 10-10-14 16:26, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On
Hello Albert,
On 10-10-14 21:51, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:09:19 +0200, Jeroen Hofstee
wrote:
Hello Marek,
On 10-10-14 16:26, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Friday, October 10, 2014 at 04:04:40 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
Hello Wolfgang,
On 10-10-14 14:22, Wolfgang Den
Hi Jeroen,
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:09:19 +0200, Jeroen Hofstee
wrote:
> Hello Marek,
>
> On 10-10-14 16:26, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Friday, October 10, 2014 at 04:04:40 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
> >> Hello Wolfgang,
> >>
> >> On 10-10-14 14:22, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> It does not mention p
Hello Marek,
On 10-10-14 16:26, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Friday, October 10, 2014 at 04:04:40 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
Hello Wolfgang,
On 10-10-14 14:22, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
It does not mention puts() vs. printf(), if it is indeed meant to be
u-boot policy.
This is not just U-Boot philosophy,
Hi Marek,
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> calling printf("%s\n", "string") gets translated into puts by the
>> compiler. There should be no difference in the binary.
>
> Is this LLVM specific or does GCC do that too ? This is interesting
> information.
Just did a quick
On Friday, October 10, 2014 at 04:04:40 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
> Hello Wolfgang,
>
> On 10-10-14 14:22, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> It does not mention puts() vs. printf(), if it is indeed meant to be
> >> u-boot policy.
> >
> > This is not just U-Boot philosophy, but something that I would
> >
Hello Wolfgang,
On 10-10-14 14:22, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
It does not mention puts() vs. printf(), if it is indeed meant to be
u-boot policy.
This is not just U-Boot philosophy, but something that I would
consider a matter of course when writing code - using the appropriate
tools for the task at
Dear Pavel,
In message <20141009230559.GB25685@amd> you wrote:
>
> v2: added tags to the subject
> v3: added diffs to previous version
> . (From memory, but IIRC something very similar to this happened before).
Yes, this happens when people repeatedly ignore to read the patch
posting rules.
> I'
Dear Pavel,
In message <20141009230004.GA25685@amd> you wrote:
>
> > [1] http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches
>
> It should really go into tree.
If you think so...
> It does not mention puts() vs. printf(), if it is indeed meant to be
> u-boot policy.
This is not just U-Boot philosophy, bu
Hi Pavel,
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 01:05:59 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2014-10-10 00:24:46, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Dear Pavel,
> >
> > In message <20141009221154.GA24774@amd> you wrote:
> > >
> > > Something like this could help..?
> > >
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:11:54AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I don't this Albert is the problem, I am starting to suspect we simply lack
> > custodian manpower in general. And I also suspect we're not quite inviting
> > and attractive crowd, which is something we should discuss too ..
On Fri 2014-10-10 00:24:46, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Pavel,
>
> In message <20141009221154.GA24774@amd> you wrote:
> >
> > Something like this could help..?
> > Pavel
> >
> > --- /dev/null 2014-10-09 01:15:57.354292026
Hi!
> > Something like this could help..?
> > Pavel
> >
> > --- /dev/null 2014-10-09 01:15:57.354292026 +0200
> > +++ doc/SubmittingPatches 2014-10-09 23:58:53.058883776 +0200
>
> Is there anything wrong with [1] ?
>
>
Dear Pavel,
In message <20141009221154.GA24774@amd> you wrote:
>
> Something like this could help..?
> Pavel
>
> --- /dev/null 2014-10-09 01:15:57.354292026 +0200
> +++ doc/SubmittingPatches 2014-10-09 23:58:53.058883776 +
Hi!
> I don't this Albert is the problem, I am starting to suspect we simply lack
> custodian manpower in general. And I also suspect we're not quite inviting
> and attractive crowd, which is something we should discuss too ...
As I said privately, I believe we have way too many custodians...
An
On 9 October 2014 21:45, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 06:11:37 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> >> These are the qspi stuff from freescale, and I didn't understand why
>> >> these goes into
>> >> u-boot-arm/master. And there is no intimation of mine as well.
>> >
>> >
On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 06:25:30 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 06:10:12PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 05:57:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:45:07PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > > On 10/09/2014 04:03 PM, Marek Va
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 06:10:12PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 05:57:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:45:07PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > On 10/09/2014 04:03 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 10:37:52 AM, Micha
On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 06:11:37 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
[...]
> >> These are the qspi stuff from freescale, and I didn't understand why
> >> these goes into
> >> u-boot-arm/master. And there is no intimation of mine as well.
> >
> > Did you comment on them at all please ? While I disagre
On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 05:57:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:45:07PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> > On 10/09/2014 04:03 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 10:37:52 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I changed the
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:45:07PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 10/09/2014 04:03 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 10:37:52 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I changed the subject, since it long didn't match the topic.
> >
[snip]
> >> If there is a
On 10/09/2014 04:03 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 10:37:52 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi!
>
> I changed the subject, since it long didn't match the topic.
>
>> On 10/08/2014 10:09 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:58:24AM +0200, Michal Simek w
On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 10:37:52 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> Hi,
Hi!
I changed the subject, since it long didn't match the topic.
> On 10/08/2014 10:09 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:58:24AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 10/07/2014 02:45 PM, Marek V
27 matches
Mail list logo
