On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:59, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
This makes padding out the blob if the user requested extra size much easer. The assembly and writing to the file is more straight forward too.
Signed-off-by: Gerald Van Baren vanbaren@cideas.com
Hi David, Jon,
I wasn't happy with David's suggestion on the -S handling. I also wasn't all that wild about how the blob was assembled and then written to the file piecemeal with "ad-hoc" alignment padding. I realized I could fix both by assembling the blob in memory as a "struct data" and then write the whole thing out in one fell swoop.
Makes it a lot simpler and cleaner to my eyes.
Hope y'all agree, gvb
Jerry and David,
Sorry. I've been out sick for a couple days here and am just now catching up. I've read through the last week's worth of mail here now, so let me see if I have properly summarized where things stand and what's needed for the DTC:
These patches need to be applied:
[PATCH dtc] Add -o <output file> to the usage message. Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:16:47 -0400
[PATCH dtc take 3] Fix reserve map output for asm format. Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:14:41 -0400
[PATCH: dtc take 2] Assemble the blob in memory before writing it out. Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:59:51 -0400
The last patch there replaces the "Improve -S handling" patches. But does the last patch replace or depend on the second one?
And I agree with David that last patch is a better approach.
Thanks, jdl