Hi Masahiro Yamada,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> Hello Graeme
>
>
> > Why would hacking /include/linux/stddef.h and /include/linux/types.h be
> > preferable?
>
> The reason is this:
> > > Personally, I prefer (2) to (1) because
> > > - we don't need to tweak common
Hello Graeme
> Why would hacking /include/linux/stddef.h and /include/linux/types.h be
> preferable?
The reason is this:
> > Personally, I prefer (2) to (1) because
> > - we don't need to tweak common/cmd_test.c any more
> > - we can reduce the conflict if we have a plan to update
> >
Hi Masahiro Yamada,
Why would hacking /include/linux/stddef.h and /include/linux/types.h be
preferable?
Regards,
Graeme
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I posted v2 of this patch
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/292258/
>
>
> I think both of two solutions w
Hi.
I posted v2 of this patch
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/292258/
I think both of two solutions work.
(1) include in common/cmd_test.c
but undef true and false.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/292247/
(2) Do not include and
define true and false with enum.
h
Hello Wolfgang, Tom.
> > Currently U-boot defins bool type by including
> > rather than defining directly.
> > But it does not work for some cross compilers.
>
> Can you explain why this fails?
At first, I have to admit that I misunderstood the reason of the error.
It turned out that this is
Tom Rini writes:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:28:56PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Masahiro Yamada,
>>
>> In message <1384770105-32364-1-git-send-email-yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> you
>> wrote:
>> > Currently U-boot defins bool type by including
>> > rather than defining directly.
>> > B
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:28:56PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Masahiro Yamada,
>
> In message <1384770105-32364-1-git-send-email-yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> you
> wrote:
> > Currently U-boot defins bool type by including
> > rather than defining directly.
> > But it does not work for some
Dear Masahiro Yamada,
In message <1384770105-32364-1-git-send-email-yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> you
wrote:
> Currently U-boot defins bool type by including
> rather than defining directly.
> But it does not work for some cross compilers.
Can you explain why this fails?
AFAICT, is a compiler pr
Currently U-boot defins bool type by including
rather than defining directly.
But it does not work for some cross compilers.
This commit changes header files to define
bool, true, false in the same way as Linux Kernel does.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada
---
Refer to include/linux/types.h and
9 matches
Mail list logo
