On Jan 3, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear York Sun, > > In message <1294089991.24386.58.ca...@oslab-l1> you wrote: >> >>> Hm... I have no idea whish sort of "buggy code" you are referring to >>> here, but in this case we shoul start and fix that buggy code, right? >> >> Making a buffer in a function's stack and make use of it out of the >> scope, that's the buggy code I am referring. > > That is bad indeed, and needs to be fixed.
Where is that happening? >>> You fail to explain why we should change anything when you "don't need >>> more than 128 characters for hwconfig" in the first place? >> >> I don't need more than 128 characters. However, the stack is trashed by >> other functions. I have to push the stack deeper to keep the content >> unchanged. I am not happy with it. > > Now I understand what you mean. > > But we do not need a bigger buffer, or store another copy of the whole > content of the "hwconfig" variable - we just need room to for the > return value of hwconfig_parse(), which usually should be (much) > smaller than the content of the "hwconfig" variable. I agree with WD, I'm confused. Can you provide the hwconfig string you are using that has issues with 128 but works at 256. - k _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
