On 2/19/19, Eric S. Raymond via devel <devel@ntpsec.org> wrote: > Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>: >> The thing that gripes me about ntp_control is that for each of the tables >> >> mentioned above, there are actually 3 parallel tables and they are a long >> way >> apart so a pain to update. Maybe if we just interlaces the #defines with >> the >> text lookup tables it would be less painful to update. > > There's that, also I might be able to consolidate them usubfg a flags > field. > >> Somebody has to decide what the order is. If you are moving things to >> ntpq, >> we can fix the order there to be the same. > > Less straightforward than I thought while writing my last reply. There > turns > out to be an unfortunate adhesion with the way the CTL_OP_READSTAT and > CTL_OP_CLOCKSTAT requests work; if I'm not careful I could cause a > comoatibily > problem with Classic ntpq. > > Still pondering...
I have a branch 'control-denum' which takes a significantly wrong approach and replaces many of the #define directives and replaces them with a trio of enums. completely untested of course. IMO a slightly less wrong solution might be to extend the table to have a couple fields for a function pointer and an argument. (a quick glimpse at the code suggest many cases are a relatively simple print the variable with the format in the function. probably the best route would be for me to shut up ow and let better minds chew on it for a while. JamesB192 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
