Can't build CVS rtems-4-7-branch

[Joel Sherrill]

Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Ignoring everything except Ralf's initial question, I did this
> analysis.
>
> These are the "return information" fields available for use in the TCB
> we have to choose from:
>
>   uint32_t              count;
>   void                 *return_argument;
>   void                 *return_argument_1;
>   uint32_t              option;
>   uint32_t              return_code;
>
> coremsgseize.c does this when a thread blocks:
>
>   executing->Wait.return_argument    = buffer;
>   executing->Wait.return_argument_1  = (void *)size;
>
>   
Grrr... misread the code.. size is passed in as

  size_t                          *size,

so we are converting size from a (size_t *) to a (void *) which is OK.

> size is passed in as a size_t so it is certainly bad to put it
> in return_argument_1.  We  should have used option or count
> and not forced it into return_argument_1. 
>
>   
Wrong Joel. :)
> Which is better to use in your opinion Ralf?  We need to pick
> something instead of return_argument_1 for size and use it
> consistently. return_argument_1 should only hold pointers.
>
>   
This cast at line 91 of coremsgsubmit.c is wrong in that the LHS side
should say size_t. So this line of code:

      *(uint32_t   *)the_thread->Wait.return_argument_1 = size;

Should be:

      *(size_t *)the_thread->Wait.return_argument_1 = size;

But I am going back to Ralf's original message and starting over. <sigh>
> Do we need to change count or option to another name and
> use size_t instead of uint32_t? 
>
> As  a future improvement, I can see minimizing the fields in
> the Wait_Information structure by having 2-3 instances of
> a multitype union (e.g. a union with a void *, uint32_t, and
> a size_t).
>
> --joel
>
>
> Till Straumann wrote:
>   
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 18:10 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Till Straumann wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Till Straumann wrote:
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> I think I have fixed all the message queue compilation error 
>>>>>>>> issues in 4.7 and 4.8.  I
>>>>>>>> can compile for sparc/leon2 now anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> Shouldn't we fix that ugly    void*  <-> uint32_t cast (by means
>>>>>>> of a union) ?
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>               
>>> You didn't get the point: I am having strong doubts this to be necessary
>>> and correct. 
>>>   
>>>       
>> I do get the point but I believe you are wrong. I provided an
>> analysis of the issue - please reply to that or come up with
>> some sort of proof for your suspicion.
>>
>> T.
>>     
>>> I am saying we have a bug somewhere.
>>>   
>>>       
>>> Ralf
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-users mailing list
> rtems-users at rtems.com
> http://rtems.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>