Albert ARIBAUD schrieb:
> Le 30/08/2010 12:31, Stefano Babic a écrit :
>> Detlev Zundel wrote:
>>> Hi Reinhard,
>>>
>> Hi Reinhard, hi Detlev,
>>
>>>> should make the buffer an union:
>>>>
>>>> union {
>>>> uint32_t ui[MAX.../4+1];
>>>> uint16_t us[MAX.../2+1];
>>>> uint8_t uc[MAX...+1];
>>>> } linebuf;
>>> That also sounds good indeed - it even better documents the intention of
>>> the code so by my own arguments I'd vote for it. I presume you will
>>> follow up with such a patch once you tested it?
>> I agree this is a better solution as adding a simple comment. Some time
>> a comment is valid only at the time of the writing, and further patches
>> could drop its meaning if the comment is not updated, too.
>
> Do we have to pick one? I say the code should use union *and* a one-line
> comment should mention how the union enforces the alignment requirement.
I will do that. Test only on ARM9. Others must try to compile and see no
other arch gives warnings.
Reinhard
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
