On 12/08/2011 15:08, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > Hi Albert, > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:21:18 +0200 > Albert ARIBAUD<albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> wrote: > >> Hi Lukasz, >> >> On 12/08/2011 13:41, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >> >>> It is embarrassing to admit, but I've __wrongly__ assumed that >>> *_range() functions are accepting the start address and range for >>> invalidation/flushing. >> >> Do you mean we're hitting again a confusion between *_range(start, >> stop) and *_range(start, length)? >> >> If so, then the need to get rid of 'anonymous prototypes' becomes >> greater yet. >> >> Amicalement, > > Yes, it seems so. Maybe it is a matter of my programming habits. > Anyway I should check semantics, before I started hacking.
Your programming habits aside, I consider it bad that a language with positional paremeters allows them to have no names, and bad also that checking the intended semantics of a C function should require looking at its body, however informative that can be. I know that C++ uses nameless function/method arguments for instance to limit "unused parameter" warnings in virtual method overrides, but that is barely a justification, and I see no other. Heck, why not go all K&R and remove arguments altogether then while we're at it? Sorry, had to vent out my Friday rant. Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
