On Dec 23, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Rick Altherr wrote:
On Dec 22, 2008, at 11:44 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:Does anyone have any objections to retiring in_check* and in_handler*?The check + in_handle code would then be invoked by the caller and not be part of the actual JTAG interface implementation. There will be no measureable performance impact either way by this, but it will result in ~1000 lines of code being deleted. -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-developmentI'll need to look at the code to know how this affects the code base. I'm traveling for the holidays, so I won't be able to comment until Jan 2nd.Rick_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
I don't see any problems with this. -- Rick Altherr [email protected]"He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split it with him."
-- Unsigned
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
