Well, the *real* problem is that there is no Return AML opcode in the
control method and the interpreter therefore does not return a value.

However, to answer your question with a question:  

Would you ask a C compiler, or any other compiler for that matter, to
actually *GUESS* at what you had intended to be the return value of a


-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 2:05 PM
To: Moore, Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Grover, Andrew
Subject: Re: [acpi-jp 1735] Re: Call for testers: acpica-unix-20020815

"Moore, Robert" wrote:
> This looks like the (in)famous "implicit return" problem that is in some
> Toshiba ASL files.
>                 Method(_CRS) {
>                     CRS_(0x10)
>                 }
> This does NOT actually return a value and the ASL code is incorrect.  It
> to be:
>                 Method(_CRS) {
>                     Return (CRS_(0x10))
>                 }
> The iASL compiler generates warnings for all instances of this erroneous
> code.

Is there any way to add a "-s" for "strict" option to the iASL compiler,
in which it generates warnings for this code... but in the absence
of the option, simply pretends it saw the "Return", since it knows
that that's the problem anyway, and is just being bitchy by warning
about it instead of warning, but also taking the appropriate corrective
action for this case?

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to