On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: > Myles Watson wrote: > > These three patches get rid of a few more warnings for me. > > > > abuild tested. > > > > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Peter Stuge <[email protected]> > Rev 4890.
Thanks, Myles > > > PS. It looks like part of the reason we have so many warnings is > > the misuse of #define __ROMCC__ to mean "early code before the > > device tree is available" __ROMCC__ is also used to get rid of > > prototypes because romcc doesn't support them. What's the right > > thing to do here? Maybe we should split the meanings so that we > > test for __GNUC__ when we mean "not romcc", and we test for > > __ROMCC__ (renamed, of course, later) when we mean early init? > > I'd like __ROMCC__ to stay, but I agree very much with a new #define > BEFOREDEVICETREE or somesuch. > How about __PRE_RAM__, since it could be CAR but it is before RAM init?
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
