On Monday 18 January 2010 18:15:32 Ben Warren wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > Ben Warren wrote:
> >> Commit 6a45e384955262882375a2785426dc65aeb636c4 (Make getenv_IPaddr()
> >> global)
> >> inadvertently added ' #include "net.h" ' to the standalone programs,
> >> creating
> >> duplicate definitions of 'struct eth_device'. This patch removes the
> >> local
> >> definitions and removes other code that breaks due to the change in
> >> definition.
> >
> > This patch may need refining.
> > I see warnings in a number of arm targets
> >
> > Old :
> > err/versatile.ERR
> >
> > smc91111_eeprom.c:33: error: redefinition of 'struct eth_device'
> > make[1]: *** [.../build/examples/standalone/smc91111_eeprom.o] Error 1
> >
> > New
> >
> > err/versatile.ERR
> > .../build/examples/standalone/smc91111_eeprom.o: In function
> > `smc91111_eeprom':
> > .../u-boot/src/u-boot-arm/examples/standalone/smc91111_eeprom.c:58:
> > undefined reference to `memset'
> > make[1]: *** [.../build/examples/standalone/smc91111_eeprom] Error 1
>
> This builds cleanly for me. I am, however, using an old toolchain (gcc
> 4.0.0 from ELDK 4.1). Do struct member assignments use memset()? Line
> 58 is the closing brace and semicolon in the following:
>
> struct eth_device dev = {
> .iobase = CONFIG_SMC91111_BASE
> };gcc may generate a reference to memset here because it wants to zero the other members as an optimization. this is why the smc911x_eeprom assigns things on the stack instead of using the form you show here. but i doubt this patch caused this problem directly. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
