3 Oct
2014
3 Oct
'14
4:42 p.m.
On Friday 2014-10-03 15:16, Peter Stuge wrote:
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.
I am not going to sprinkle osmocore with defines or otherwise make
talloc pluggable/replaceable by some other set of allocation
functions. I came to fix the problem I have an interest in, and that
is making osmocore support a system talloc in lieu or in addition to
a bundled talloc (->
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries),
exercising standard diliegence, which includes that previously
supported cases continue to function to the best of observation.
I have no idea what you mean by that. 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.
>* 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 >>
>> +++ 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.
Here's a hint at least: Think about symmetry and dependency.