Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 02.08.2008 16:50, Stefan Reinauer wrote:

Index: src/arch/i386/lib/console_print.c
===================================================================
--- src/arch/i386/lib/console_print.c   (revision 3461)
+++ src/arch/i386/lib/console_print.c   (working copy)
@@ -58,58 +58,59 @@
        }
 }
-#define NOINLINE __attribute__((noinline))
-static void print_emerg_char(unsigned char byte) { 
__console_tx_char(BIOS_EMERG, byte); }
-static void print_emerg_hex8(unsigned char value){ 
__console_tx_hex8(BIOS_EMERG, value); }
-static void print_emerg_hex16(unsigned short value){ 
__console_tx_hex16(BIOS_EMERG, value); }
-static void print_emerg_hex32(unsigned int value) { 
__console_tx_hex32(BIOS_EMERG, value); }
-static void print_emerg(const char *str) { __console_tx_string(BIOS_EMERG, 
str); }
+#define STATIC

I don't understand that change. You unconditionally define STATIC
as empty token instead of simply removing it.
Yes, absolutely. Someone put it there and was thinking something.

So this allows to put a method in place choosing when it would be required to really set those function prototypes static.


Stefan

--
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
     Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  • http://www.coresystems.de/
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg • HRB 7656
Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer • Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

--
coreboot mailing list
coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Reply via email to