This repository was archived by the owner on Dec 2, 2020. It is now read-only.
korken89's J-Link fix behind a feature flag #39
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @adamgreig (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
nickray
changed the title
adamgreig
reviewed
Aug 20, 2019
nickray
force-pushed
the
nickray-jlink-quirks
branch
from
fa48e58 to
ef36141
Compare
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2019
39: korken89's J-Link fix behind a feature flag r=adamgreig a=nickray In response to #38 I suggest picking up #35 again. @korken89 since you observed -1, -2, -3, maybe `n > 0xffff_fff0` is a good condition instead of catching just "-1"? As I understand it, worst case some very long outputs get truncated. I did send an email to Segger support (would be good if these special cases were a finite list, and documented in UM08001), but who knows if they will answer :) Co-authored-by: Nicolas Stalder <[email protected]>
Build succeeded |
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2019
42: Add equivalent of dbg! macro r=adamgreig a=nickray I think this would be quite useful. Thoughts? Maybe it would be better for `dbg!` to be in core with somehow switchable implementation (semihosting, vcom, etc.), but I don't know how to approach that. Added CHANGELOG also for the missing one for #39 Perhaps some more documentation is needed? Co-authored-by: Nicolas Stalder <[email protected]>
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2019
42: Add equivalent of dbg! macro r=adamgreig a=nickray I think this would be quite useful. Thoughts? Maybe it would be better for `dbg!` to be in core with somehow switchable implementation (semihosting, vcom, etc.), but I don't know how to approach that. Added CHANGELOG also for the missing one for #39 Perhaps some more documentation is needed? Co-authored-by: Nicolas Stalder <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In response to #38 I suggest picking up #35 again.
@korken89 since you observed -1, -2, -3, maybe
n > 0xffff_fff0is a good condition instead of catching just "-1"? As I understand it, worst case some very long outputs get truncated.I did send an email to Segger support (would be good if these special cases were a finite list, and documented in UM08001), but who knows if they will answer :)