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

Reply via email to