Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #88133

Re: Reading the Riot Act To ARM's developers

From	Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.embedded
Subject	Re: Reading the Riot Act To ARM's developers
Date	2012-02-10 21:25 -0800
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<qnah09-1p2.ln1@spankydtr.localhost.net> (permalink)
References	<WGiYq.100467$WX2.28685@newsfe28.ams2> <02c9e013-9c6b-4270-8b82-c7d16b51269c@sw7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <h3AYq.25807$ZT6.970@newsfe23.ams2>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

[snips]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:29:52 +0000, 7 wrote:

> If I use my own names for the flags by imposing similar structures to
> that of PIC compiler, that code will not be compatible with other
> engineers who will use completely different names for the same flags.

Which matters if you're re-compiling/assembling their sources... in which 
case you can pre-process their code to use your naming (or vice-versa).  

And if they're working on the same codebase, why aren't you sharing a 
mutually-agreeable set of include files with common definitions, or some 
equivalent?

If you're not working on the same codebase, why does it matter if the 
names differ?

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Reading the Riot Act To ARM's developers Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2012-02-10 21:25 -0800
  Re: Reading the Riot Act To ARM's developers 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2012-02-11 09:27 +0000

csiph-web