| Submitter | Myles Watson |
|---|---|
| Date | 2009-10-27 13:26:55 |
| Message ID | <5867521367FA4285A3B23F99F08FC84A@chimp> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/496/ |
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On 27/10/2009, Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maciej, > > Thanks for the patch. I think most of it is ready to be committed. > > Index: src/lib/clog2.c > =================================================================== > --- src/lib/clog2.c (revision 4869) > +++ src/lib/clog2.c (working copy) > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ > /* Assume 8 bits per byte */ > #define CHAR_BIT 8 > > +unsigned long log2(unsigned long x); > + > unsigned long log2(unsigned long x) > { > // assume 8 bits per byte. > > Things like this make me wonder if we should just turn off the warning. Is > there a header file where we can put some of these prototypes? On begining of previous patch version, was an comment about such things, i didn't found suitable header where such utility function prototypes might be added, if its desired to make include/utils.h or something similar with better name i will move prototypes there. But please note in few places prototype is just before function because it is used only locally (for my knowledge) if not then it should be moved to header too. So if you have idea how this issue should be fixed let me know. Maciej
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Maciej Pijanka <maciej.pijanka@gmail.com>wrote: > On 27/10/2009, Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Maciej, > > > > Thanks for the patch. I think most of it is ready to be committed. > > > > Index: src/lib/clog2.c > > =================================================================== > > --- src/lib/clog2.c (revision 4869) > > +++ src/lib/clog2.c (working copy) > > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ > > /* Assume 8 bits per byte */ > > #define CHAR_BIT 8 > > > > +unsigned long log2(unsigned long x); > > + > > unsigned long log2(unsigned long x) > > { > > // assume 8 bits per byte. > > > > Things like this make me wonder if we should just turn off the warning. > Is > > there a header file where we can put some of these prototypes? > > On begining of previous patch version, was an comment about such > things, i didn't found > suitable header where such utility function prototypes might be added, > if its desired to make > include/utils.h or something similar with better name i will move > prototypes there. > Sorry, I didn't look at the first version of the patch. I think that the cleanest thing would be to have files in include that mirror the .c files. If we have to add too many new .h files, maybe we should combine some .c files. But please note in few places prototype is just before function > because it is used only locally (for my knowledge) if not then it > should be moved to header too. > If you declare it as static that will silence the warning as well. Of course this only works when it is just used locally. Thanks, Myles
On 27/10/2009, Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Maciej Pijanka > <maciej.pijanka@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 27/10/2009, Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Maciej, >> > >> > Thanks for the patch. I think most of it is ready to be committed. >> > >> > Index: src/lib/clog2.c >> > =================================================================== >> > --- src/lib/clog2.c (revision 4869) >> > +++ src/lib/clog2.c (working copy) >> > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ >> > /* Assume 8 bits per byte */ >> > #define CHAR_BIT 8 >> > >> > +unsigned long log2(unsigned long x); >> > + >> > unsigned long log2(unsigned long x) >> > { >> > // assume 8 bits per byte. >> > >> > Things like this make me wonder if we should just turn off the warning. >> Is >> > there a header file where we can put some of these prototypes? >> >> On begining of previous patch version, was an comment about such >> things, i didn't found >> suitable header where such utility function prototypes might be added, >> if its desired to make >> include/utils.h or something similar with better name i will move >> prototypes there. >> > Sorry, I didn't look at the first version of the patch. I think that the > cleanest thing would be to have files in include that mirror the .c files. > If we have to add too many new .h files, maybe we should combine some .c > files. I split patch, leaving part that don't require adding new headers as one, while rest is in another. > But please note in few places prototype is just before function >> because it is used only locally (for my knowledge) if not then it >> should be moved to header too. >> > If you declare it as static that will silence the warning as well. Of > course this only works when it is just used locally. I checked using grep, and it seems that resource_tree is called just from device_util.c where its declared, so might be static and moved to not-requiring new headers part of patch. > > Thanks, > Myles >
Acked-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com>
Thanks,
Myles
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com> wrote: > > Acked-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com> > Rev 4871. Thanks, Myles
In v3 IIRC we decided on an include file, lib.h, which had these sorts of "nuisance" prototypes. ron
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:58 AM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote: > In v3 IIRC we decided on an include file, lib.h, which had these sorts > of "nuisance" prototypes. > Something like that would be fine with me, but since we'd do it just to do it, not to make the code cleaner, maybe it's just as good to put the prototypes by the functions. Thanks, Myles
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com> wrote: > Something like that would be fine with me, but since we'd do it just to do > it, not to make the code cleaner, maybe it's just as good to put the > prototypes by the functions. In the case of that function you need a proto outside the file anyway. Having to put a proto next to a function makes the whole thing seem kind of pointless :-) ron
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:10 AM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Something like that would be fine with me, but since we'd do it just to > do > > it, not to make the code cleaner, maybe it's just as good to put the > > prototypes by the functions. > > In the case of that function you need a proto outside the file anyway. > > Having to put a proto next to a function makes the whole thing seem > kind of pointless :-) > Agreed. I don't like the missing prototype warning. Myles
Myles Watson wrote: > Maciej, > > Thanks for the patch. I think most of it is ready to be committed. > > Index: src/lib/clog2.c > =================================================================== > --- src/lib/clog2.c (revision 4869) > +++ src/lib/clog2.c (working copy) > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ > /* Assume 8 bits per byte */ > #define CHAR_BIT 8 > > +unsigned long log2(unsigned long x); > + > unsigned long log2(unsigned long x) > { > // assume 8 bits per byte. > > Things like this make me wonder if we should just turn off the warning. Is > there a header file where we can put some of these prototypes? > No, we should not turn off the warning. It's the "Is our API correct?" warning. We had very ugly bugs because of different prototypes in different .c files. Yes, there are many header files,.. check src/include for a fitting one. If there is none, we should think about creating one.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Reinauer [mailto:stepan@coresystems.de] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:25 AM > To: Myles Watson > Cc: 'Maciej Pijanka'; coreboot@coreboot.org > Subject: Re: [coreboot] small patch for prototypes and unused variables > > Myles Watson wrote: > > Maciej, > > > > Thanks for the patch. I think most of it is ready to be committed. > > > > Index: src/lib/clog2.c > > =================================================================== > > --- src/lib/clog2.c (revision 4869) > > +++ src/lib/clog2.c (working copy) > > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ > > /* Assume 8 bits per byte */ > > #define CHAR_BIT 8 > > > > +unsigned long log2(unsigned long x); > > + > > unsigned long log2(unsigned long x) > > { > > // assume 8 bits per byte. > > > > Things like this make me wonder if we should just turn off the warning. > Is > > there a header file where we can put some of these prototypes? > > > No, we should not turn off the warning. It's the "Is our API correct?" > warning. We had very ugly bugs because of different prototypes in > different .c files. In that case we ought to squash them all. Too many warnings makes it hard to see important ones. > Yes, there are many header files,.. check src/include for a fitting one. > If there is none, we should think about creating one. Maybe we should create src/include/lib.h for all of the missing ones from src/lib? Thanks, Myles
Myles Watson wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stefan Reinauer [mailto:stepan@coresystems.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:25 AM >> To: Myles Watson >> Cc: 'Maciej Pijanka'; coreboot@coreboot.org >> Subject: Re: [coreboot] small patch for prototypes and unused variables >> >> Myles Watson wrote: >> >>> Maciej, >>> >>> Thanks for the patch. I think most of it is ready to be committed. >>> >>> Index: src/lib/clog2.c >>> =================================================================== >>> --- src/lib/clog2.c (revision 4869) >>> +++ src/lib/clog2.c (working copy) >>> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ >>> /* Assume 8 bits per byte */ >>> #define CHAR_BIT 8 >>> >>> +unsigned long log2(unsigned long x); >>> + >>> unsigned long log2(unsigned long x) >>> { >>> // assume 8 bits per byte. >>> >>> Things like this make me wonder if we should just turn off the warning. >>> >> Is >> >>> there a header file where we can put some of these prototypes? >>> >>> >> No, we should not turn off the warning. It's the "Is our API correct?" >> warning. We had very ugly bugs because of different prototypes in >> different .c files. >> > In that case we ought to squash them all. Too many warnings makes it hard > to see important ones. > Agreed. The old build system made it far to easy to ignore warnings. Now with Kconfig we have a serious chance of detecting issues with our code. :-) I think this is very healthy. > > >> Yes, there are many header files,.. check src/include for a fitting one. >> If there is none, we should think about creating one. >> > Maybe we should create src/include/lib.h for all of the missing ones from > src/lib? > Stuff like sprintf would nicely fit in stdio or string.h, so the include file hints in the man pages for those functions kind of fit. Maybe that's odd taste, I don't know. All the other stuff that does not implement libc functionality (or explicitly deserves an own include file for some reason) should go into a lib.h. Maybe even just having lib.h is enough.
Patch
Index: src/lib/clog2.c =================================================================== --- src/lib/clog2.c (revision 4869) +++ src/lib/clog2.c (working copy) @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ /* Assume 8 bits per byte */ #define CHAR_BIT 8 +unsigned long log2(unsigned long x); + unsigned long log2(unsigned long x) { // assume 8 bits per byte.