On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 12:57:40PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> This becomes important with gcc-4.9. Without this gcc assumes
> that accessing NULL pointers traps and everything that happens
> behind the access is not executed. This recently happened with
> i.MX53 which has:
>
> static int imx53_silicon_revision(void)
> {
> void __iomem *rom = MX53_IROM_BASE_ADDR;
I assume MX53_IROM_BASE_ADDR is 0? Is this worth to be pointed out in
the commit log?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
