Hi Albert,
On 01/16/2013 08:25 PM, Albert ARIBAUD (U-Boot) wrote:
Hi Chris,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:23:58 +1300, Chris Packham judge.packham@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've just run into something porting an existing out of tree board to u-boot 2012.10 but I think it points to a generic issue for standalone applications.
Consider the following change
diff --git a/examples/standalone/hello_world.c b/examples/standalone/hello_world.c index 067c390..d2e6a77 100644 --- a/examples/standalone/hello_world.c +++ b/examples/standalone/hello_world.c @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ #include <common.h> #include <exports.h>
-int hello_world (int argc, char * const argv[]) +int net_init (int argc, char * const argv[]) { int i;
Because I'm not linking with the u-boot object file, I should be able to use any function name I like in my application as long as it isn't one of the functions in exports.h (at least in theory). Unfortunately I end up with the following compiler error
hello_world.c:27: error: conflicting types for ‘net_init’ uboot/include/net.h:489: error: previous declaration of ‘net_init’ was here make[1]: *** [hello_world.o] Error 1
If I replace #include <common.h> in my app with the first hunk of includes from the top of common.h then I can compile just fine.
I was wondering if it made sense to people to have standalone applications define something like __STANDALONE__ either via CPPFLAGS or in the source itself and use the presence of that to exclude the majority of common.h when used in standalone applications. Or alternatively move the required bits to exports.h.
(long rant ahead. Short answer after end of rant)
Short response: Yep I can live with that by making some changes to my standalone application. I just thought it might be cleaner if a minimal set of definitions were provided.
[RANT]
Code writers indeed have a right to name any function or other object any way they choose... within the constraints of the situation.
Some of these constraints stem from the tools -- you just cannot put an ampersand in a C object name, for instance -- and some stem from the 'agreement' entered into when using a library -- precisely, the agreement on the name and semantics of such and such object names.
Here, by including exports.h, you enter an agreement in which the object name 'net_init' receives a specific meaning. What you want is to benefit from the agreement without abiding by it.
Now this can be changed, technically, as most things are, and a new kind of agreement could be devised with fine-grain control on which object names would or would not be defined. The question is, *should* this be done?
Would you, analogously, suggest that Linux app developers be able to opt out of defining fopen() when they #include <stdio.h> because they feel they have a right to define 'char* fopen(float F)' in their code if they so please? And that it should be done so for just about any kernel-exported symbol? I suspect not.
Actually this is my point. The symbols aren't exported. They're just in the header file. The kernel solution for this is using __KERNEL__ and filtering the exported headers to remove the kernel internals not needed by userland. If for some reason I did define a different fopen I'd get a link error whether I included stdio or not.
So why ask this from U-Boot?
[/RANT]
I personally will NAK such a suggestion. I don't see the point in adding complexity just to solve a naming conflict between a framework, de facto standard, name and a freely-modifiable application name. Just rename the application function -- that'll be all the better since that will also remove potential misunderstanding for readers of your code.
Thanks, Chris
Amicalement,