On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:10:08 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 23.08.2011 17:12 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > > compile tested with gcc 4.4.5 and clang 2.8 > > I agree with the idea and support it. > However, I don't know how supportable this is on 16 bit platforms with > 16 bit int. We need at least 24 bits to handle flash addresses, and we > could either create a new typedef chipoffset_t or specify uint32_t > explicitly. I favor a new typedef because it will make auditing easier > if we ever run on 16 bit programmers. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> > > A comment about the typedef idea would be appreciated. Anyway, this is > (even if you reject the explicit type idea) > Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> thanks, committed in r1448. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
