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