Re: RFC: Remove BSP_Configuration

["Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp dot com>" <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>]

Eric Norum wrote:
> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2005, at 10:06 AM, gregory.menke@gsfc.nasa.gov 
> <mailto:gregory.menke@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> > "Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com <mailto:joel@OARcorp.com>>" 
> > <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com <mailto:joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com>> writes:
> >
> > > gregory.menke@gsfc.nasa.gov <mailto:gregory.menke@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com <mailto:joel@OARcorp.com>>" 
> > > > <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com <mailto:joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com>> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > My proposal would be to:
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) Eliminate BSP_Configuration entirely.  Do not copy
> > > > >      the generated Configuration to BSP_Configuration and
> > > > >      modified Cofniguration as required in the BSP.
> > > >
> > > > We have found BSP_Configuration to be useful at runtime, having a
> > > > well-defined struct to pull footprint info out of is nicer than defining
> > > > symbols in the linker script.
> > >
> > > You would still have the structure -- it would just be called 
> > > Configuration.
>
>
> I agree with the proposal but in the interest of namespace pollution 
> reduction could the name be changed to rtemsConfiguration or something 
> like that?   

I don't see why not.  Pretty much everything that looks in a 
configuration table will change anyway in a minor way to really 
implement this correctly.

I expect this will shrink executables a bit but I can't guess how much.

> --
>
> Eric Norum <norume@aps.anl.gov <mailto:norume@aps.anl.gov>>
>
> Advanced Photon Source
>
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
> (630) 252-4793


--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel@OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
   Support Available             (256) 722-9985