On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> I think we should be extremely careful about defining public interfaces.
>
> Especially since the JTAG API still (yes still! the hard bits are done
> though) needs work & cleanup.
>
> As an old colleague of mine(Mike Sinz) said: “Programmin
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> C++ *can* be a pretty hellish language if one goes overboard
> with weird features and libraries...
Right. Nobody intends to do this, yet it happens.
Every developer has his pet C++ feature. Ultimately the
project ends up with the union o
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Michael Bruck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Albert Cahalan wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Michael Bruck wrote:
> This is a random snippet from the Linux kernel.
>
> The readability of this would benefit from remo
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Michael Bruck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Nico Coesel wrote:
>> are embedded firmware engineers. Most embedded firmware engineers I know
>> have very little to do with C++, OO programming and the STL / boost
>> libraries. These people probably won't
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Michael Schwingen wrote:
>> I really like the designated initializers, and would miss these most.
>> IMHO, they can make the code safer and easier to understand.
...
> They can make the code safer and easier to understand, yes. They have
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Igor Skochinsky wrote:
> Just Visual Studio 2005, but I guess the exact version does not matter much.
It does matter. You need to upgrade if you want printf-family
functions to support long long correctly. If you don't upgrade,
you'll be doing this:
#ifdef _MSC
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Michael Bruck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Zach Welch wrote:
>> At the most fundamental level, it comes down to this:
>>
>> C == imperative programming
>> C++ == object-oriented programming
>>
>> The different mindsets should yield completely diffe
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Strontium wrote:
> That said, I don't like C99, because of the issues it introduces with
> regard to strict aliasing. I still don't understand why the language
> specification cares about making life easy for an optimiser more than it
> cares about the correctnes
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> What's wrong with this code?
>
>long long then=timeval_ms();
>while ((timeval_ms()-then)
> This appears many places in the code.
>
> comparision will work unless the difference is
> greater than 31/63 bits in s
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Rick Altherr wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2009, at 1:06 AM, Albert Cahalan wrote:
>> As you noticed, weird things can happen. :-(
>>
>> For MacOS, don't define anything to indicate
>> BSD or POSIX source. That would break stuff.
>
>
As you noticed, weird things can happen. :-(
For MacOS, don't define anything to indicate
BSD or POSIX source. That would break stuff.
For Linux, the FSF bastards demand _GNU_SOURCE
as part of their plan to give Linux an ugly name.
I suggest:
-std=gnu99 (accept modern code)
-D_GNU_SOURCE (satisf
11 matches
Mail list logo
