On 18/05/17 20:35, Pham, Phong wrote:
I am only interested in moving rtems_fatal() implementation to a fatal.c (thus
removing the inline) and leave the indirection issue alone. Are you
comfortable with this (b4 I do the work and checkin)? In this manner, the API
remain the same.
Why should
you guys are comfortable with yahoo.com email).
>
Yes it is preferred versus the corporate boilerplate.
> Phong.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sebastian Huber [mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:16 PM
> To: Pham, Phong; rtems-de...@rte
llman, Robert
Subject: Re: rtems_fatal() as inline in a header file
On 18/05/17 01:08, Pham, Phong wrote:
>
> Hi Developers,
>
> Currently:
> ...\rtems\cpukit\sapi\include\rtems\fatal.h
> %5Cinclude%5Crtems%5Cfatal.h>
>
> is implemented as
>
> RTEMS_NO_RETURN RTEMS
On 18/05/17 01:08, Pham, Phong wrote:
Hi Developers,
Currently:
…\rtems\cpukit\sapi\include\rtems\fatal.h
is implemented as
RTEMS_NO_RETURN RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE void rtems_fatal(
rtems_fatal_source fatal_source,
rtems_fatal_code error_code
)
{
_Terminate( fatal_source, error
Hi Developers,
Currently:
...\rtems\cpukit\sapi\include\rtems\fatal.h
is implemented as
RTEMS_NO_RETURN RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE void rtems_fatal(
rtems_fatal_source fatal_source,
rtems_fatal_code error_code
)
{
_Terminate( fatal_source, error_code );
}
I suggest to move the implementation
