[lwip-users] Re: [lwip] eZ80 port

[Jani Monoses]

First of all I think that as more and more  ports and drivers are done
it is necessary to put them in a separate package.lwip-ports or something
Since no actual improvements are done to core functionality there is no need
to include it.
As far as broken compilers go I am totally against cluterring the code with 
even more ifdefs.
The goal is to make lwip clean and separable of apps and arch dependent code.
Again this is my opinion and if somebody has another view let's discuss it here.
For working on lwIP it's better to have the clean sources:faster cvs update and 
download time,
relevant cscope or ctags database and grep results..
so
RFC: how about making a separate arch module in cvs where people can look for 
implementation examples
or get the desired paltform code, while the lwip module sould contain only the 
original unixsim?



>
> The compiler error in this case was that the expression:
> 
>            (u8_t *)seg->p->payload)
> 
> Was actually compiled as if the following were written:
> 
>            (u8_t *)seg->p)
> 
Have you tried explicit casts or more parantheses instead of another var?

> **Unless** TCP_OUT_DEBUG was turned on, in which case it compiled
> correctly.  As you might imagine, it takes many hours to debug each
> compiler bug like this. (There are rumors that new compilers, perhaps
> better, will be available by January.)  In the mean time, I have a project 
> to complete...:)

Luckily your projects goal is probably about getting lwip to work and not about 
getting 
these workarounds in public CVS ;)

Jani.
[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]