On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 2014-03-03 16:36, Jennifer Averett wrote: >>> >>> >Is the implementation correct for CPU sets which are not pre-allocated? >>> > >> >> Until we have a system that supports over 32 CPU's the implementation can >> not be tested for this. I minimized the locations that will have to be >> touched >> when we support this but I didn't think it was correct to add code that >> can not >> be tested. >> > > You can test the inline functions separately. You can add an _Assert() if > someone hits a not implemented path. If you copy an attribute with somehow > allocated CPU sets, then you need to allocate somehow memory for the copy. > This allocation may fail, so you cannot use a void function? > This is a good point. Most copy functions return the destination pointer.
> > -- > Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH > > Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany > Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 > Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 > E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > PGP : Public key available on request. > > Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. > _______________________________________________ > rtems-devel mailing list > rtems-devel@rtems.org > http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
