On Tuesday 27 September 2011 12:13:03 Simon Glass wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday, September 26, 2011 16:23:01 Simon Glass wrote: > >> At the moment including stdlib and including common.h are mutually > >> exclusive. This probably makes some sense (why would anyone include > >> stdlib.h in U-Boot except with hostcc?), but in that case we should > >> try to replace any need for stdlib with our own definitions. Does that > >> sounds right? > > > > sounds like something for compiler.h to worry about ? > > The header of compiler.h says 'Keep all the ugly #ifdef for system > stuff here', so I was hoping to avoid association with that file. > People do explicitly include div64.h but compiler.h is included by > common.h. So it seems to be that a separate header is called for...?
compiler.h is meant to provide a sane view to both u-boot and the host tools, so this would be an acceptable use imo. it's really not that scary :). however, the code you're referring to is only used by u-boot code, and it's merely to provide the API to lib/ldiv.c. since ldiv and div64 are so conceptually similar, i think it's fine to keep the two in the same header. if we really detest the "64" part, let's rename include/div64.h to include/div.h, and then pull all this duplicated ldiv logic out of files and into the new div.h header. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot