On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:18 AM wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 2021, at 10:57 , Sebastian Huber <
> sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 29/01/2021 15:29, dufa...@hda.com wrote:
> >
> >>> On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian Huber<
> sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> >>>
> On Jan 29, 2021, at 10:57 , Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>
> On 29/01/2021 15:29, dufa...@hda.com wrote:
>
>>> On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian
>>> Huber wrote:
>>>
What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places?
It sounds odd to me, as if you're insisti
On 29/01/2021 15:29, dufa...@hda.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian Huber
wrote:
What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places?
It sounds odd to me, as if you're insisting the function provide something that
it might otherwise decide not to.
"Get" was alrea
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:29 AM wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian Huber <
> sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> >
> >> What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places?
> >>
> >> It sounds odd to me, as if you're insisting the function provide
> somethin
> On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>
>> What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places?
>>
>> It sounds odd to me, as if you're insisting the function provide something
>> that it might otherwise decide not to.
> "Get" was already used. This is a "Get" wh
On 28/01/2021 15:06, Peter Dufault wrote:
What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places?
It sounds odd to me, as if you're insisting the function provide something that
it might otherwise decide not to.
"Get" was already used. This is a "Get" when we know the identifier is
v
What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places?
It sounds odd to me, as if you're insisting the function provide something that
it might otherwise decide not to.
> On Jan 28, 2021, at 24:18 , Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>
> On 27/01/2021 21:25, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>> Piling
On 27/01/2021 21:25, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Piling on Gedare's comment but also ...
(1) If this is justifiable, then every use should have a comment
block about why the id is known to be good.
(2) What does this really save? That should be documented for the method.
Seems like a micro-optimizat
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:38 AM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> We do not need all the checks if we have a valid indentifier to a thread
> class object.
>
> Move _RTEMS_tasks_Free() to the only source file which calls this
> function.
> ---
> cpukit/include/rtems/r
We do not need all the checks if we have a valid indentifier to a thread
class object.
Move _RTEMS_tasks_Free() to the only source file which calls this
function.
---
cpukit/include/rtems/rtems/tasksimpl.h | 16
cpukit/include/rtems/score/threadimpl.h | 25 ++
10 matches
Mail list logo
