| Summary: | Mod_construct should be (optionally) available in static-only systems | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Technology] RTSC | Reporter: | Dave Russo <d-russo> |
| Component: | Core | Assignee: | Dave Russo <d-russo> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | karl |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | target:3.23 | ||
Copying comments to 349505 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 349505 *** |
As it stands today, Mod_construct() throws an error when used in a static only system: o both Mod_create() and Mod_construct() reference a configuration generated function o in static only configurations this generated function simply throws an error o in create or delete policy configurations this generated function call first calls xdc.runtime.Core.createObject() then calls the module's instance init function To support modules that want to allow construct to be used in static-only systems we can: o add a @StaticConstruct attribute to the module spec language o static-only configurations, change the config generated create functions for modules with this new attribute during to 1. throw an error if NULL is passed for the object's space 2. call a simpler xdc.runtime.Core.constructObject() which has no reference to Memory allocation functions, but 3. otherwise behaves identically to the function currently generated for create-policy configurations. o for all other configurations, the generated create functions would be unchanged from it's current implementation. We can avoid adding the @StaticConstruct attribute if we are willing to accept larger configuration generated big.c files for static-only systems.