Dear Joe Hershberger, In message <CANr=Z=bmm64Qxv+Zpc=gshy7c2kapagh9xm-cq79tm1oq76...@mail.gmail.com> you wrote: > > WARNING:NEW_TYPEDEFS: do not add new typedefs > This seems rather limiting... I'm not sure why even Linux would want > this, at least when it applies to typedefs of structs. It makes sense > if it's a new typedef for int or something.
See the CodingStyle, start reading at "It's a _mistake_ to use typedef for structures and pointers." > WARNING:VOLATILE: Use of volatile is usually wrong: see > Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt > Sometimes using volatile is correct... not sure how this fits in with > a policy of 0 errors and 0 warnings... Should it be ignored or not? There are very, very few cases where a volatile is actually OK, and these should be hiddenin the lowese levels of the implementation. In all cases where we are dealing with device I/O and similar, the volatile shall be removed, and proper I/O accessors be used instead (these may then actually use volatile pointer accesses internally, but usually they don't need to either). 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 There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly dis- appear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexpli- cable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
