I had too problem with "timers" files, not directly during compilation because if files are in different folders there is no obvious problem, but during debugging. Debugger was always opening wrong timers file. Please rename it.
Da: lwip-users [mailto:lwip-users-bounces+rastislav.uhrin=vymyslicky...@nongnu.org] Per conto di Joel Cunningham Inviato: martedì 21 giugno 2016 01:06 A: lwip-devel <lwip-de...@nongnu.org> Cc: lwip-de...@nongnu.org; Mailing list for lwIP users <lwip-users@nongnu.org> Oggetto: Re: [lwip-users] [lwip-devel] 2.0.0 Beta2? On the timers.c issue, I haven't ran into that one yet, but I have ran into source file name collisions with mem.c My preferred solution is to fix it at the build system level. Hopefully the project can use something smarter than a flattened global list of source files to compile. But if not, all-aboard the rename boat :( I'd prefer not to add lwip_ to the file name because none of the other files are named that. I like being consistent :) Here's a couple: timer.c timr(s).c sys_timer(s).c combine with sys.c (which only contains sys_msleep) Joel On Jun 20, 2016, at 05:49 PM, Greg Smith <gsm...@hennypenny.com<mailto:gsm...@hennypenny.com>> wrote: Hi Simon & Sylvain. > Sent: Monday, 20 June 2016 04:27 > > > - work around the often found link-time issue of the fact that the file name > > 'timers.c' is used by FreeRTOS, too (anyone have a good idea?) > > timeouts.c, timetriggers.c ? Just a couple thoughts: Easier: Rename to lwip_timers.c/.h Harder: Or maybe refactor and put the TCP timers in tcp.c/.h (or new files called tcp_timers.c/.h) and put the others into sys.c/.h (or new files sys_timers.c/.h). (I'm not intimately familiar with these files, so I don't know if this is a reasonable suggestion or not.) > > > > I'm open for votes on what else to include into 2.0.0 final, but I'd rather > > throw out 2.0.1 soon instead of delaying 2.0.0 further... > > I started working on a PPP rework to allow user custom configuration (as > per Greg request), which is almost finished, the hardest part is done. A > couple of macros and removal of useless function arguments replaced with > config set and we should be done. If everything went I expected it > should be finished in a couple of days, is that ok for you ? I'd prefer to get the PPP(oS) stuff in the 2.0.0 release, of course. However, I don't want to be the hold-up for the whole community and I can make do with what I have right now. So if I get outvoted, I won't hold it personally against anyone. :-) -- Greg ________________________________ This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com ________________________________ _______________________________________________ lwip-devel mailing list lwip-de...@nongnu.org<mailto:lwip-de...@nongnu.org> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-devel
_______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
