----- Hesham ALMatary <heshamelmat...@gmail.com> schrieb: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Sebastian Huber > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > > ----- Hesham ALMatary <heshamelmat...@gmail.com> schrieb: > >> ^^ > >> s/already/only > >> > >> Both are working fine with or1k. Let me know which is better. I'd > >> suggest getting rid of the static declaration as sparc (the only other > >> CPU that empty-implements the same function) implements it without > >> "static". > >> > > > > Providing an empty implementation is wrong. Thus function needs to get > > removed for the SPARC. > > > Agreed. If deleted will this break other SPARC BSPs that depend on > this empty implementation? I don't know which SPARC BSPs do.
The only consumer of this function is cache_manager.c. In case the BSP provides this function and it must define CPU_CACHE_SUPPORT_PROVIDES_RANGE_FUNCTIONS and vice versa. It should be also static inline since the reason for its introduction was performance. -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 E-Mail : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de PGP : Public key available on request. Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
