Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001142
--- Comment #23 from Sergei Gavrikov <[email protected]> 2011-02-15 21:00:43 GMT --- Hi (In reply to comment #22) > Sometimes the solution is doing nothing or next to nothing. Fortunately, it happens sometimes. > Since method for production of section boundaries is fixed, > straight-forward and common (for all sections): __<section_name>_start > __<section_name>_end, it could be documented (possibly within > http://ecos.sourceware.org/docs-latest/ref/hal- linker-scripts.html ) > with some code snippet for zeroing of section. > > I guess USER_SECTION() would need a proper documentation anyway. Honestly, I could not grasp why you need START/END macros (then you have convinced me). The first picture in my head was. A HAL/MLT designer (not CT user) using USER_SECTION macro "describes" a few random access memory regions for new CPU. For example, 'mem1', 'mem2', 'mem3' sections. This HAL/MLT designer provides and a support to init (clear) the regions, so, he/she knows the names. It is clear to him/her to use __mem1_start, __mem1_end, etc. as external labels (he/she knows what USER_SECTION() macro is). He/she is the HAL designer. Then if they want they can provide via CDL rules a few choices for CT user, for example, to obtain some rooms in one from a few (one from from one) section (I mean a choice the values are allowed by our designer), i.e. with CDL func. legal_values { mem1 mem2 mem3 }, I dislike an idea to allow CT user to name the sections and "to code" in C/CPP using "complex" macros. But, this is mine. So, we can stay on USER_SECTION() innovation only. What your verdict be? Will HAL/MLT designer be happy with it? As for me I like this rollback. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
