This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Jan Engelhardt jengelh at inai.deOn Friday 2014-10-03 15:16, Peter Stuge 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. 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. >> >> >> +++ 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. 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.