On 3/25/10 11:07 PM, Myles Watson wrote: > >> I changed one as an example now... >> I guess we could optimize to not copy the header twice, but the header >> is really small, so i didn't care to make the code uglier. >> > I agree. > > >> @@ -273,8 +273,10 @@ >> acpi_create_facs(facs); >> >> dsdt = (acpi_header_t *) current; >> - current += AmlCode.length; >> - memcpy((void *) dsdt, &AmlCode, AmlCode.length); >> + memcpy((void *) dsdt, AmlCode, sizeof(acpi_header_t)); >> + int len = dsdt->length; >> + current += len; >> + memcpy((void *) dsdt, AmlCode, len); >> > Why not: > >> + current += dstd->length; >> + memcpy((void *) dsdt, AmlCode, dsdt->length); >> > I don't think the extra variable adds anything. > Ah, I thought in terms of "it's overwriting memory while it's using it". Was I too careful? I think so.
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
