On Friday 29 November 2024 00:31:04 Martin Storsjö wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, Pali Rohár wrote:
>
> > On Friday 29 November 2024 00:18:38 Martin Storsjö wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > >
> > > > Currently mingw_vfwscanf.c files provides 3 functions:
> > > > mingw_swformat(), mingw_vfwscanf() and mingw_vswscanf().
> > > >
> > > > Split this file into 3 files, one for each function.
> > > >
> > > > Diff for this change from git is more human readable when showed by
> > > > git options -B and -D.
> > > > ---
> > > > mingw-w64-crt/Makefile.am | 4 +-
> > > > .../{mingw_vfwscanf.c => mingw_swformat.c} | 46 +-
> > > > mingw-w64-crt/stdio/mingw_swformat.h | 63 +
> > > > mingw-w64-crt/stdio/mingw_vfwscanf.c | 1645 +----------------
> > > > mingw-w64-crt/stdio/mingw_vswscanf.c | 15 +
> > > > 5 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 1671 deletions(-)
> > > > copy mingw-w64-crt/stdio/{mingw_vfwscanf.c => mingw_swformat.c} (97%)
> > > > create mode 100644 mingw-w64-crt/stdio/mingw_swformat.h
> > > > rewrite mingw-w64-crt/stdio/mingw_vfwscanf.c (99%)
> > > > create mode 100644 mingw-w64-crt/stdio/mingw_vswscanf.c
> > >
> > > > index 81cb46b661e9..5f4b2c08f395 100644
> > > > --- a/mingw-w64-crt/stdio/mingw_vfwscanf.c
> > > > +++ b/mingw-w64-crt/stdio/mingw_swformat.c
> > > > @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@
> > > > #include <locale.h>
> > > > #include <errno.h>
> > > >
> > > > +#include "mingw_swformat.h"
> > > > +
> > > > #ifndef CP_UTF8
> > > > #define CP_UTF8 65001
> > > > #endif
> > > > @@ -80,19 +82,6 @@
> > > >
> > > > #define IS_ALLOC_USED (USE_GNU_ALLOC | USE_POSIX_ALLOC)
> > > >
> > > > -/* internal stream structure with back-buffer. */
> > > > -typedef struct _IFP
> > > > -{
> > > > - __extension__ union {
> > > > - void *fp;
> > > > - const wchar_t *str;
> > > > - };
> > > > - int bch[1024];
> > > > - unsigned int is_string : 1;
> > > > - int back_top;
> > > > - unsigned int seen_eof : 1;
> > > > -} _IFP;
> > > > -
> > > > static void *
> > > > get_va_nth (va_list argp, unsigned int n)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -123,7 +112,7 @@ optimize_alloc (char **p, char *end, size_t
> > > > alloc_sz)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static void
> > > > -back_ch (int c, _IFP *s, size_t *rin, int not_eof)
> > > > +back_ch (int c, _IFPW *s, size_t *rin, int not_eof)
> > > > {
> > > > if (!not_eof && c == WEOF)
> > > > return;
> > >
> > > So here we're renaming the structure _IFP into _IFPW - is this a required
> > > step? I guess this may have been the case if you initially considered
> > > using
> > > one shared header for both narrow and wide versions of it, but as this
> > > currently has two separate headers, I guess the struct renaming strictly
> > > isn't necessary?
> > >
> > > // Martin
> >
> > Yea, maybe the renaming is not necessary. But I think it is better if we
> > do not have two different structures with same names in header files.
>
> Yes, that's probably reasonable. Anyway, I think this aspect is fine, but it
> would be good to mention it in a commit message (the fact that it's not
> necessary but it is done to disambiguate the two variants of the struct).
>
> If I don't have other issues with this patchset, I can amend that message
> before pushing.
>
> // Martin
Ok, feel free to modify commit message as needed.
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
