On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Rempel, Cynthia <cynt6...@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote: >>________________________________________ >>From: ged...@gwmail.gwu.edu [ged...@gwmail.gwu.edu] on behalf of Gedare Bloom >>[ged...@rtems.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:19 AM >>To: Rempel, Cynthia >>Cc: Hesham AL-Matary; rtems-devel@rtems.org >>Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libmm score and stubs >> >>On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Rempel, Cynthia >><cynt6...@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote: >>> Hi Hesham, >>> >>> Thanks for doing the stubs :) >>> Could you pull all the implementation specific parts of mm.h and mm.inl >>> into a header called mmimpl.h ? >>> It would then match the header-style score is heading towards... >>> If the no_memorymanagement.c is for devices without mm support, could you >>> have the functions print out a "stub warning/error" message? That way the >>> user knows not to rely on memory management... >>> >>I don't think we should have the stubs do anything in the normal case. > Why? We should not add print statements to kernel code. Some users may prefer to leave the stubs in place despite the lack of functionality.
Maybe you mean a compile-time warning, which would be fine to add. >>We could add something when RTEMS_DEBUG is enabled. > > _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
