On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 01:57:52 PM Nick Thompson wrote: >> On 27/09/11 11:21, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:31:15 AM Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> >> Dear Marek Vasut, >> >> >> >> In message <1317062895-3847-1-git-send-email-marek.va...@gmail.com> you > wrote: >> >>> The size of uboot binary grows by a few bytes, but the gain (better >> >>> type checking) is worth it. >> >> >> >> And what _exactly_ are "a few bytes" ? >> > >> > Nevermind, it must have been some kind of a fluctuation yesterday. Right >> > now, I made a new measurement and the size didn't change with/without >> > the patch (this is more what I'd expect to happen). >> > >> > Cheers >> >> Pure speculation on my part, but /could/ this be because ARM drivers don't >> tend to use these macros/functions. write[bwl] and the like are much more >> common. I don't know this to be a fact though. > > No, I'm dead sure I use this macro in the test. > >> >> Nick. >
Hi, Can't comment on the patch format, etc. I tested this on my Seaboard, with no code size increase, and all worked as expected. I can't see why it would increase code size either. But I have a few questions: what devices actually uses this macro? Otherwise I'm not sure if I am testing anything. Also, why not convert all the macros in this file? Seems like a good idea to me. Or is this patch just to test the waters? :-) Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
