On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 13:10 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: [snip] > > Sorry Rick, but I think that you and Duane have lost this argument. > > You have failed to defend your position with facts. > > I could say the same of everyone else. Considering the entire issue > is rooted in preference, there are no hard facts to be presented.
Okay, apparently I need to spell them out for you. Here are the facts: 1) They are shorter: 3 < 7 and 3 < 8. 2) most of the OpenOCD code uses the short types - it was developed before the C99 types could be relied upon - "grandfathering" these types says nothing about the rest of OpenOCD 3) the patch to unify the changes to short types is minor and finished: - it uses the C99 types fully, so we get all of their benefits - it will fix portability problems on some 64-bit architectures - it leaves the code more correct than it was before the patch Further, you can argue with the following assertions -- only if you can show me a patch that proves them wrong: A patch to use C99 types would be: - difficult to create in the first place, - bigger than the community would be able or willing to review, and - a major source functional regressions. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
