On 23/02/12 10:27, Aneesh V wrote:
> Ok. Agree. I never used to use %function when I wrote assembly
> functions earlier. I am sure a lot of code will break if this was
> enforced.
If you've not used %function on ARM, then your code is semantically
broken even if it isn't syntactically broken.
The
Aneesh V wrote on 23.02.2012 11:27:40:
> > The "packed" attribute specifies that all struct elements ought to be
> > considered to have alignment requirement 1 instead of their default
> > alignment. Thus the whole struct ends up having alignment requirement
1;
> > and since the section contains
On Tuesday 21 February 2012 03:27 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:59:53PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
"V, Aneesh" wrote:
I agree that not marking the assembly functions ' %function' is a problem
in the code, so it's not a critical bug. But I would've been happier if
the lin
Oops! Sorry. These mails skipped my Inbox and went into a sub-folder
in my mail client that I hadn't used for a long time. I didn't
realize that I had mails!
On Monday 20 February 2012 11:29 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
"V, Aneesh" wrote:
I agree that not marking the assembly functions ' %functi
