[Toybox] imgtec patch: Fix static linkage of toybox binary.

[Rob Landley]

On 05/06/2016 08:38 PM, enh wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
>> On 05/06/2016 02:56 PM, enh wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
>>>> Applied, and that fetch+cherry-pick thing _also_ seems to avoid a
>>>> gratuitous merge commit, which is very nice.
>>>
>>> it also has the happy side-effect (because you keep the gerrit
>>> change-id line) of appearing in the UI as if the originally uploaded
>>> change was merged when i do my command-line merge from github. so if i
>>> hadn't told the imgtec guy i was sending this patch upstream first, as
>>> far as he knows it just got submitted here.
>>>
>>> (i'll still keep pointing folks upstream though, because the community
>>> of those fiddling with toybox should be around upstream, not AOSP or
>>> whichever other downstream they happen to use personally.)
>>
>> I'm happy to make better use of git, so if you care about the history of
>> a specific commit being preserved I can do that again.
> 
> not particularly. the main advantage for me is that it's less work to
> just send you the appropriate link and copy/paste git command than to
> cherrypick myself and git format-patch (when you're just going to have
> to do the same on your end anyway) :-)
> 
> by strange coincidence, i have another one for you today: "Fix UB in
> stack depth calculation."
> (https://android-review.googlesource.com/223547)

Except this is one of those "not taking the patch as-is" things, because
it's got a variable declaration in the middle of a block, and I'd like
an in-situ comment explaining why we do a non-obvious thing.

Is typecasting both pointers to (long) insufficient here? (That's being
pretty darn explicit that I want to do math on the integer
representations of these pointers. I know compiler writers are crazy
these days, but how crazy are we talking?)

If we need to explicitly copy it into a volatile long I can do that, but
I'd declare it at the top of the function...

Rob