4 Oct
2014
4 Oct
'14
12:45 a.m.
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I have no idea what you mean by that.
That's sad.. :\
On Friday 2014-10-03 15:16, Peter Stuge wrote:
Because you seem to be working with this part of the code now and you
might as well do a thorough job if you're spending time on it.
I am not going to
Okey then.
> >* Firmware builds with no talloc
> That may be the use case, but it is not what was implemented.
Why don't you look into fixing that
Why should I? >> >> +#include
<osmocom/core/talloc.h>
>> >
>> >Is this hunk needed?
>> Yes, because system talloc has a
>> #define talloc_free(ctx) _talloc_free(ctx, __location__)
>> and otherwise, one gets "implicit definition of talloc_free" and
>> "undefined reference to `talloc_free'".
>
>Dude, that is a kludge at a callsite, as opposed to a proper
>dependency fix. Try again.
Here's a hint at least: Think about symmetry and dependency. Talk code, not riddles.
Other code also uses #include <osmocore/core/talloc.h>,
so it does not seem too far-fetched to use the exact line
to support the case of multiple talloc configurations.
Think more about it.
Why did you add the talloc.h include?
- Because the file calls talloc_free().
Why is talloc_free() called?
- To free memory allocated and returned by osmo_config_list_parse().
Symmetry then dictates that the talloc.h include belongs in msgfile.h,
as opposed to in all files which includes msgfile.h.
I really hope that makes sense. Headers usually do include their
dependencies, rather than require callers to do that on their own.
//Peter