Peter Stuge wrote:
> The alternative is quite straightforward, so I would
> strongly prefer not going there.
Allow me to clarify that;
The alternative of rewriting to use no double pointers makes the code
much more straightforward, so I would strongly prefer not using any
double pointers. :)
//
On 2010/12/11 13:00, Peter Stuge wrote:
Afraid not. The alternative is quite straightforward, so I would
strongly prefer not going there.
Thought as much :-)
Well, will leave it up to you guys to decide. I can test any new
patches required.
Cheers,
Paul
__
Paul Richards wrote:
> Peter, note that the double pointers are in the target list function
> implementations (that would be copied), are you ok with this?
Afraid not. The alternative is quite straightforward, so I would
strongly prefer not going there.
Thanks!
//Peter
On 2010/12/11 8:20, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
I don't know. But, generally, if I _can_ register the same handler
twice, I'd expect each registration to require a separate unregister
call. The actual call sites would have to be inspected before changing
this behavior, of course. There shouldn't b
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
>> > Now there's 3 versions to choose from :-)
>>
>> It's not too late. The target versions seems nice and readable. And
>> correct, as far as I can see this late hour. I think the jtag version
>> should follow the be
Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
> > Now there's 3 versions to choose from :-)
>
> It's not too late. The target versions seems nice and readable. And
> correct, as far as I can see this late hour. I think the jtag version
> should follow the behavior of these and only remove the first matching
> handler
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Paul Richards wrote:
> On 2010/12/10 18:46, Spencer Oliver wrote:
>>
>> Not looked into it but why do we not just duplicate the existing
>> unregister event/timer functions - or are they broken aswell?
>>
>
> They (the target versions) don't appear to have the same
On 2010/12/10 18:46, Spencer Oliver wrote:
Not looked into it but why do we not just duplicate the existing
unregister event/timer functions - or are they broken aswell?
They (the target versions) don't appear to have the same problem. The
only difference I can see is that the jtag_unregist
On 2010/12/10 17:34, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
I think optimizing for testability & readability is the way to go here.
Especially considering the evidence that this code doesn't get tested
a whole lot
I can verify that both solutions work.
I'm OK with whichever solution you guys choose since y
On 10/12/2010 08:34, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Two versions attached.
I'll leave it to you to decide which is the best way to
implement this
I prefer the longer but simpler to read one. Were it mostly a smaller
my own proj
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> > Two versions attached.
>>
>> I'll leave it to you to decide which is the best way to
>> implement this
>
> I prefer the longer but simpler to read one. Were it mostly a smaller
> my own project then I'd gone with the s
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > Two versions attached.
>
> I'll leave it to you to decide which is the best way to
> implement this
I prefer the longer but simpler to read one. Were it mostly a smaller
my own project then I'd gone with the shorter one.
> and to incorporate any feedback.
I doubt anyon
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> > double pointers are horrible.
>>
>> Ah, missed that. Well another patch is gladly accepted, meanwhile
>> it no longer crashes.
>
> Fair. Two versions attached. One which makes the code two lines
> longer and avoids dou
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > double pointers are horrible.
>
> Ah, missed that. Well another patch is gladly accepted, meanwhile
> it no longer crashes.
Fair. Two versions attached. One which makes the code two lines
longer and avoids double pointers, and a remix which uses only a
single double point
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> Merged.
>
> So I should have complained more loudly. The double pointers are
> horrible.
Ah, missed that. Well another patch is gladly accepted, meanwhile
it no longer crashes. Hopefully the fact that I accepted a patch
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Merged.
So I should have complained more loudly. The double pointers are
horrible.
//Peter
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Merged.
Thanks!
--
Øyvind Harboe
Can Zylin Consulting help on your project?
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 00
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex
JTAG debugger and flash programmer
___
Openocd-d
I'm attaching the patch proposed in the last mail as I'll be offline
shortly.
Regards,
Paul
On 2010/12/08 18:02, Paul Richards wrote:
On 2010/12/08 16:27, Peter Stuge wrote:
The priv comparison logic is reversed.
Sorry, can't believe that snuck in, thanks.
The code is horrible. (Certain
On 2010/12/08 16:27, Peter Stuge wrote:
The priv comparison logic is reversed.
Sorry, can't believe that snuck in, thanks.
The code is horrible. (Certainly not your fault!) Sorry if that's
offensive to the original author. The variable names do not help.
Will this work:
int jtag_unregister_
Paul Richards wrote:
> +++ b/src/jtag/core.c
> @@ -296,27 +296,25 @@ int jtag_register_event_callback(jtag_event_handler_t
> callback, void *priv)
>
> int jtag_unregister_event_callback(jtag_event_handler_t callback, void *priv)
> {
> - struct jtag_event_callback **callbacks_p;
> - str
Fix for issue described in the following mail
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2010-December/017479.html
From c78f5203622438e73580c327a6e55a0df17b85a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Richards
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:48:55 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fa
21 matches
Mail list logo
