This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Stack access violations in eCos
- From: Larice Robert <larice at vidisys dot de>
- To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- Cc: ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:54:28 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] Stack access violations in eCos
> Renaming CYGBLD_ANNOTATE_ALIGNED is just a search and replace. And I've
> done what I can to help with the ChangeLog!
i've done so, will send it a bit later.
> CYGBLD_ATTRIB_ALIGN should stay as it is, accepting an argument. We're
> adding a new CYGBLD_ATTRIB_ALIGNED macro that takes the maximum alignment
> required for a thread stack. Perhaps the best thing to do is in fact to
> rename your CYGBLD_ANNOTATE_ALIGNED to CYGBLD_ATTRIB_ALIGNED_MAX to make
> this intention clearer.
meanwhile i've learned a possibility how to change the definition of
CYGBLD_ATTRIB_ALIGN in such a way as to allow no argument.
-#define CYGBLD_ATTRIB_ALIGN(__align__) __attribute__((aligned(__align__)))
+#define CYGBLD_ATTRIB_ALIGN(__align__...) __attribute__((aligned(__align__)))
makes it possible to write
char stack[200] CYGBLD_ATTRIB_ALIGN();
and gcc will decide itself whats neccesairy
do you accept and or like this change ?
or would you prefer something like
char stack[200] CYGBLD_ATTRIB_ALIGN(CYGARC_ALIGNMENT);
not so beautiful i think
Robert Larice
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss