On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 18:05 +0100, Beat Forster wrote: > >I found the reference to push alerter in the code a bit misleading: the > >ifndef referred to one user of the code instead of the feature that it > >enables or disables. I suggest to rename the check to > > #ifdef ENABLE_SAN_1_1 > > // additional code > > #endif > I feel a litle bit unhappy with choosing the > inverse sense of the flag, as it requires a > target_options adaption for all targets using > san. Why not choosing "WITHOUT_SAN_1_1" ?
Okay, done and pushed. [sysync_malloc/realloc/free] > >I'm more than happy to get rid of them, but wasn't sure whether the code > >then still works as intended in all circumstances (for example, when > >combined with other code which uses the sysync_* memory profiling). > Maybe Lukas sees some restrictions here ? Lukas? > >Okay, revised patch in git. If you agree with it, please cherry-pick or > >merge and publish it on synthesis.ch so that the license change becomes > >official. > Ok, after clarification of the two open points above. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ os-libsynthesis mailing list os-libsynthesis@synthesis.ch http://lists.synthesis.ch/mailman/listinfo/os-libsynthesis
