On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:45:34AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/5/2015 9:56 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 09:52:48PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Proof of concept patch.
> >>
> >> Annotates input source file and line number of nodes and properties
> >> as comments in output .dts file when --annotate flag is supplied.
>
> < snip >
>
>
> >> Index: b/srcpos.c
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- a/srcpos.c
> >> +++ b/srcpos.c
> >> @@ -246,6 +246,41 @@ srcpos_copy(struct srcpos *pos)
> >> return pos_new;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +struct srcpos *
> >> +srcpos_copy_all(struct srcpos *pos)
> >> +{
> >> + struct srcpos *pos_new;
> >> + struct srcfile_state *srcfile_state;
> >> +
> >> + if (!pos)
> >> + return NULL;
> >> +
> >> + pos_new = srcpos_copy(pos);
> >> +
> >> + if (pos_new) {
> >> + /* allocate without free */
> >> + srcfile_state = xmalloc(sizeof(struct srcfile_state));
> >> + memcpy(srcfile_state, pos->file, sizeof(struct srcfile_state));
> >> +
> >> + pos_new->file = srcfile_state;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return pos_new;
> >> +}
> >
> > You still don't need this function. srcfile_states have unlimited
> > lifetime.
>
> My observation about this is buried in a late reply to v5, so
> copying here:
>
> If I don't allocate a new copy of pos->file, then the file names are
> incorrect. I'm not sure why. I can dig into this deeper to try to
> understand what is going on if you want me to.
>
> It sounds like I do need to debug this.
That's weird. Yeah, we need to debug this.
Btw, I was thinking about the filenames - in particular the way the
current draft will give you very unwield full paths. I was thinking
about a different approach which should shorten those without
requiring different invocation or hand hacking:
* For the "base" dts file (the one passed on the command line),
always use just the basename (i.e. final piece of the file path)
* For all other files, print the relative path from the directory
of the base file
/include/ directives already open files relative to the directory of
the file including the /include/ so we have some of the mechanisms for
this already.
I think this will require a moderate amount of extra work, so I
wouldn't suggest it for the first cut, but does it sound like a good
approach in principle to you?
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
