On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 01:05:21PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: > On 6/8/20 2:24 AM, Michal Simek wrote: > > It is in u-boot mainline from February. Then we had to fix it in April. > > Do you have a link/commit hash for said fix? > > > In the middle of this I have seen IIC one patchset which improves hex > > handling which is likely better way then this. > > Same for this. > > > I am fine with reverting this patch but I would also like to see more > > comments in the code to say that we shouldn't really change this. > > This seems like a larger issue. There is a lot of code in U-Boot > implementing the C standard library, especially the string library. > Should we have a comment in each file which says something like "The > functions here implement the C standard, think carefully before making > semantic changes"?
Honestly? Yes, it would be good to note which functions do their best to implement / conform to C standard and which _may_ deviate from it. For example, we have an alternative printf that doesn't support all format characters. Making that clearer (and then what ones our normal printf doesn't handle) would be good. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
