Dear Michal Simek, In message <4e647722.9080...@monstr.eu> you wrote: > > > I can only offer you a solution that seems acceptable to me. > > seems?
Well, yes. As mentioned, I'm not happy with the propsal myself, but as long as I cannot come up with any better one it would be unjust to demand it from you. > >> This obviously doesn't mix well. If there is no better way > >>> of doing this, I'd still prefer deriving the index from the offset in > >>> a struct than deriving the address from an offset - the intention is > >>> to enable the compiler to perform type checking, which is impossible > >>> with a typeless base+offset address. > >> I understand the reasons for that but I can't see any elegant way how to > >> do so. > > > > Well, I just proposed one way - not elegant indeed, but I'd be willing > > to swallow that. > > You mean that array of structs, right? No. I mean the text above: I'd rather derive the index from the offset in a struct instead of deriving the address from an offset (but I have to admit that I don't see an elegant way to implement this yet). Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Why can you only have two doors on a chicken coop? If it had four it would be a chicken sedan. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
