3 Oct
2014
3 Oct
'14
3:16 p.m.
Jan Engelhardt 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.
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
Jan Engelhardt
wrote:
Why don't you look into fixing that
Why should I? * Firmware
builds with no talloc
That may be the use case, but it is not what was implemented. 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'".