Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] compiler.h: remove duplicated uninitialized_var
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:39:44AM +0200, Jeroen Hofstee wrote: > Hello Masahiro, > > On 18-09-14 04:14, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >>Since clang has a different definition for uninitialized_var > >>it will complain that it is redefined in include/compiler.h. > >>Since these are already defined in linux/compiler.h just remove > >>this instance. > >> > >>Cc: Masahiro Yamada > >>Cc: Tom Rini > >>Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee > > > > > >I don't mind this patch but it has made me realize > >another problem. > > > > > >We have both include/compiler.h and include/linux/compiler.h. > >Some sources use tha former and others use the latter. > > > >I don't know how to use the right one in the right place. > > no me neither, although it seems arch / drivers tend to use > linux/compiler.h more while tools include compiler.h more. My first guess is that we can't as easily throw into tools and thus need that around just for tools. Perhaps we should note as much in and fix regular code to use ? -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] compiler.h: remove duplicated uninitialized_var
Hello Masahiro, On 18-09-14 04:14, Masahiro Yamada wrote: Since clang has a different definition for uninitialized_var it will complain that it is redefined in include/compiler.h. Since these are already defined in linux/compiler.h just remove this instance. Cc: Masahiro Yamada Cc: Tom Rini Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee I don't mind this patch but it has made me realize another problem. We have both include/compiler.h and include/linux/compiler.h. Some sources use tha former and others use the latter. I don't know how to use the right one in the right place. no me neither, although it seems arch / drivers tend to use linux/compiler.h more while tools include compiler.h more. Header file policy is one of the biggest problem in U-boot. Everyone has added ugly work-arounds to solve his own problem without correct views or judgement. diff --git a/include/compiler.h b/include/compiler.h index 9afc11b..1451916 100644 --- a/include/compiler.h +++ b/include/compiler.h @@ -129,9 +129,6 @@ typedef unsigned long int uintptr_t; #endif /* USE_HOSTCC */ -/* compiler options */ -#define uninitialized_var(x) x = x - #define likely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 1) #define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0) I am not sure if likely(x) and unlikely(x) should also duplicated here. yup I wondered about that too. likely / unlikely are used a lot more though then the isolated use of uninitialized_var. And as they don't cause any problems (the definitions are the same) I let them alone, but I think they should be removed as well some day. Regards, Jeroen ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] compiler.h: remove duplicated uninitialized_var
Jeroen, > Since clang has a different definition for uninitialized_var > it will complain that it is redefined in include/compiler.h. > Since these are already defined in linux/compiler.h just remove > this instance. > > Cc: Masahiro Yamada > Cc: Tom Rini > Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee I don't mind this patch but it has made me realize another problem. We have both include/compiler.h and include/linux/compiler.h. Some sources use tha former and others use the latter. I don't know how to use the right one in the right place. Header file policy is one of the biggest problem in U-boot. Everyone has added ugly work-arounds to solve his own problem without correct views or judgement. > diff --git a/include/compiler.h b/include/compiler.h > index 9afc11b..1451916 100644 > --- a/include/compiler.h > +++ b/include/compiler.h > @@ -129,9 +129,6 @@ typedef unsigned long int uintptr_t; > > #endif /* USE_HOSTCC */ > > -/* compiler options */ > -#define uninitialized_var(x) x = x > - > #define likely(x)__builtin_expect(!!(x), 1) > #define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0) > I am not sure if likely(x) and unlikely(x) should also duplicated here. Best Regards Masahiro Yamada ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
