Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Friday 2014-10-03 15:16, Peter Stuge wrote: > > >> >> >* Firmware builds with no talloc > >> >> That may be the use case, but it is not what was implemented. > >> >Why don't you look into fixing that > >> Why should I? > > > >Because you seem to be working with this part of the code now and you > >might as well do a thorough job if you're spending time on it. > > I am not going to
Okey then. > >> >> >> +#include <osmocom/core/talloc.h> > >> >> > > >> >> >Is this hunk needed? > >> >> Yes, because system talloc has a > >> >> #define talloc_free(ctx) _talloc_free(ctx, __location__) > >> >> and otherwise, one gets "implicit definition of talloc_free" and > >> >> "undefined reference to `talloc_free'". > >> > > >> >Dude, that is a kludge at a callsite, as opposed to a proper > >> >dependency fix. Try again. > > > >Here's a hint at least: Think about symmetry and dependency. > > I have no idea what you mean by that. That's sad.. :\ > Talk code, not riddles. > Other code also uses #include <osmocore/core/talloc.h>, > so it does not seem too far-fetched to use the exact line > to support the case of multiple talloc configurations. Think more about it. Why did you add the talloc.h include? - Because the file calls talloc_free(). Why is talloc_free() called? - To free memory allocated and returned by osmo_config_list_parse(). Symmetry then dictates that the talloc.h include belongs in msgfile.h, as opposed to in all files which includes msgfile.h. I really hope that makes sense. Headers usually do include their dependencies, rather than require callers to do that on their own. //Peter
