Hi Stephen, On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:06:53 -0600, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> > +c) Relax the -munified-access rule globally. This will prevent native > > I assume that's meant to say -munaligned-access? > > + until the target gets compiled with m-unaligned-access. > > s/m-/-m/ > > +d) Relax the -munified-access rule only for for files susceptible to > > I assume that's meant to say -munaligned-access? Thanks for spotting these. Fixed in next round. > > + the local initialized array issue. This minimizes the quantity of > > + code which can hide unwanted misaligned accesses. > > + > > +Considering the rarity of actual occurrences (as of this writing, 5 > > +files out of 7840 in U-Boot, or .3%, contain an initialized local char > > +array which cannot actually be replaced with a const char*), detection > > +if the issue in patches should not be asked from contributors. > > I assume therefore that option (d) was chosen. Perhaps state this > explicitly? Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity: indeed option d) is the one chosen. Made explicit in next round. Thanks again! Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
