Ivy Zhuang commented on a discussion on cpukit/include/rtems/rtems/semdata.h: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1358#note_155166 > > #if defined( RTEMS_SMP ) > MRSP_Control MRSP; > + MPCP_Control MPCP; MRSP_Control and MPCP_Control are already in the union Core_control contained by the Semaphore_Control struct, so there wouldn't need to be a union within a union. If there is already a union for the Control structs in Semaphore_Control even without RTEMS_SMP defined, then I think it doesn't make sense to go for a polymorphism approach. -- View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1358#note_155166 You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org. Unsubscribe from this thread: https://gitlab.rtems.org/-/sent_notifications/4-8rojd0c23t0dbtggp7tljjbny-1d/unsubscribe | Manage all notifications: https://gitlab.rtems.org/-/profile/notifications | Help: https://gitlab.rtems.org/help
_______________________________________________ bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs
