On 23.10.2015 18:32, Martin Roth wrote:
So, is there a third option that I'm missing? Other opinions?
The third option would be a plain text format which is easy to parse but still covers the spec well.
I'd say that we should store the SPDs as binaries - these are easy to use at build time, and there's no reason to build them every time. They change, but infrequently. Then we need a better tool.
That would also apply to a bootblock that needs a specific assembler or romcc. Would you distribute that as a binary too?
Nico
I don't think it's really very similar at all. The bootblock output can change drastically based on Kconfig settings. Am I missing something?
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
On 23.10.2015 18:32, Martin Roth wrote:
So, is there a third option that I'm missing? Other opinions?
The third option would be a plain text format which is easy to parse but still covers the spec well.
I'd say that we should store the SPDs as binaries - these are easy to use at build time, and there's no reason to build them every time. They change, but infrequently. Then we need a better tool.
That would also apply to a bootblock that needs a specific assembler or romcc. Would you distribute that as a binary too?
Nico
2015-10-23 18:59 GMT+02:00 Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de:
I'd say that we should store the SPDs as binaries - these are easy to use at build time, and there's no reason to build them every time. They change, but infrequently. Then we need a better tool.
That would also apply to a bootblock that needs a specific assembler or romcc. Would you distribute that as a binary too?
If there's exactly one translation between "preferred form" and binary, that is bijective, why not?
Patrick
-
Martin Roth -
Nico Huber -
Patrick Georgi