Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
- 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?
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.
Why can't you?
I wish I could.
+++ b/tests/msgfile/msgfile_test.c @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ */
#include <osmocom/core/msgfile.h> +#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.
Well, enlighten us, mr-know-it-all.
Here's a hint at least: Think about symmetry and dependency.
//Peter