On Friday, July 17, 2015 03:32:43 PM Aaron Durbin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:27 PM, ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > bummer. We're going to have to add marshalling code to cbfs, to copy
> Ya. You'd need to fix cbfs as well is my guess.
Not really. It's OK to be extra careful when generating the CBFS headers, but
it's also nice to have a clean simple format that can be easily parsed from
assembly (haven't we seen that before?).
Long term, we might want to look at the benefits of consolidating the table
format. At the very least, we shouldn't care enough about how gcc aligns
things, that there's a multi-line comment about it.
> > pointers from the architecture we're on to the architecture we're on,
> > which
> > was compiled by gcc for the architecture we're on, compiled on the
> > architecture we're not on, to conform to rules for an architecture we're
> > not on.
> > goodbye, a = b
> > hello, memcpy(&a, &b, sizeof(a));
> > barf.
> Ya. And since this is C it makes for some really annoying work. Now if
> you write a spec that can be processed by a machine for all these
> serialized structs we could generate code based on the CPU's
Well, similar schemes exist already (see nanopb).