On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 5:53 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 4:48 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote:
> >
> > I may have missed something. Commented in one place.
> >
> > It looks like mostly spaces inside () and variable/parameter declaration
> changes.
> >
> Yes, for the most part those are the least consistent so far.
>
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 4:38 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/cpukit/score/cpu/arm/armv7m-isr-dispatch.c
> b/cpukit/score/cpu/arm/armv7m-isr-dispatch.c
> >> index ea168969ba..dfc125d545 100644
> >> --- a/cpukit/score/cpu/arm/armv7m-isr-dispatch.c
> >> +++ b/cpukit/score/cpu/arm/armv7m-isr-dispatch.c
> >> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
> >>
> >> #ifdef ARM_MULTILIB_ARCH_V7M
> >>
> >> -static void __attribute__((naked)) _ARMV7M_Thread_dispatch( void )
> >> +static void __attribute__((naked)) _ARMV7M_Thread_dispatch(void)
> >> {
> >> __asm__ volatile (
> >> "bl _Thread_Dispatch\n"
> >> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void __attribute__((naked))
> _ARMV7M_Thread_dispatch( void )
> >> );
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static void _ARMV7M_Trigger_lazy_floating_point_context_save( void )
> >> +static void _ARMV7M_Trigger_lazy_floating_point_context_save(void)
> >> {
> >> #ifdef ARM_MULTILIB_VFP
> >> __asm__ volatile (
> >> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static void
> _ARMV7M_Trigger_lazy_floating_point_context_save( void )
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >>
> >> -void _ARMV7M_Pendable_service_call( void )
> >> +void _ARMV7M_Pendable_service_call(void)
> >> {
> >> Per_CPU_Control *cpu_self = _Per_CPU_Get();
> >>
> >> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ void _ARMV7M_Pendable_service_call( void )
> >> * this interrupt service may be delayed until interrupts are enable
> again.
> >> */
> >> if (
> >> - ( cpu_self->isr_nest_level |
> cpu_self->thread_dispatch_disable_level ) == 0
> >> + (cpu_self->isr_nest_level |
> cpu_self->thread_dispatch_disable_level) == 0
> >> ) {
> >
> >
> > Does this fit on a single line?
> >
> No. it's like two characters short. In fact, i had to do this one
> manually. otherwise, it breaks as
> if ( (...
> ) == 0 ) {
>
! instead of == 0? :)
>
> > Ignoring the fact it is using bitwise operations on two integer
> counters. Perhaps
> > it should be a +?
> >
> separate problem I suppose. That is a little bit of a suspicious bit of
> logic.
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
