On 12/12/2011 01:18 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Gerlando Falauto,
I think it's easier to read it the original way, and it should not make any difference as far as code size is concerned.
The Coding Style makes an explicit exception regarding the line length for user visible strings:
83 Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks, unless 84 exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does not hide 85 information. Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and 86 are placed substantially to the right. The same applies to function headers 87 with a long argument list. However, never break user-visible strings such as 88 printk messages, because that breaks the ability to grep for them.
I don't understand: why are you quoting this here and now? The chunk we are referring to doesn't change a bit about the printable string.
himport_r() is getting a bit overloaded,
Actually, I believe it makes no longer sense to have it called "_r", as it was the original reference to the function being recursively calleable (i.e. reentrant) as opposed to other versions which were not.
Has this changed?
Of course it hasn't. But I don't see any point in keeping this notation anyway.
Also, for me this patch adds 500 bytes. I wonder if more of the code could made optional?
Frankly, I'm surprised to hear this adds that much overhead. Actually, I can't see this increase in code size as you mention. What architecture are you referring to? In my workspace (ppc_6xx) u-boot.bin and a stripped u-boot ELF file are surprisingly unchanged in size, even with debug #defined!
Don't look at file size. Use the "size" command and compare code / data / bss sizes.
Yep, sorry, I'll look into that to see what part is mostly reponsible for this.
Best, Gerlando