Re: [ECOS] Stack access violations in eCos

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>]

Larice Robert wrote:
> > 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__)))

I don't want to introduce a dependency on vararg macros. That completely 
ties us to GCC removing a lot of the point of cyg_type.h in the first place!

> or would you prefer something like
> char stack[200] CYGBLD_ATTRIB_ALIGN(CYGARC_ALIGNMENT);
> not so beautiful i think

I think I must have written unclearly, sorry. I would prefer:

char stack[200] CYGBLD_ATTRIB_ALIGNED_MAX;

i.e. a separate macro.

Jifl
--
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine


--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss