On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 11:46:01PM +1100, Graeme Russ wrote:
> > Perhaps the macro could be expanded to include a prototype for the function,
>
> How so - Can you provide a code example?
Sure, since all the functions are int(*)(void), just something like this:
+#define INIT_FUNC(fn, init_name, deps) \
+ static int ##fn (void); \
+ static const char __init_func_ ## fn[] __used \
+ __attribute__((__section__(".initfuncs"))) = \
+ "(" #fn ":" #init_name ";" #deps ")\n";
(I'm guessing static is OK for this use case?).
The patch overall looks like it will make it a lot simpler to understand and
change the sequence initialisation functions are called, which is a very good
thing. I'm just mindful of getting easy-to-diagnose error messages back when
things go wrong.
An example:
static int f1(int x)
{
return x + 1;
}
#define INIT_FUNC(fn) \
static void fn(int)
INIT_FUNC(f1);
gcc immediately throws the following error:
t2.c:9: error: conflicting types for ‘f1’
t2.c:1: note: previous definition of ‘f1’ was here
which is pretty clear.
Bye for now,
--
Laurence Withers, <lwith...@guralp.com> http://www.guralp.com/
Direct tel:+447753988197 or tel:+443333408643 Software Engineer
General support queries: <supp...@guralp.com> CMG-DCM CMG-EAM CMG-NAM
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
