On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Two versions attached.
I'll leave it to you to decide which is the best way to
implement this
I prefer the longer but simpler to read one. Were it mostly a smaller
my own project then I'd gone with the
On 10/12/2010 08:34, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Peter Stugepe...@stuge.se wrote:
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Two versions attached.
I'll leave it to you to decide which is the best way to
implement this
I prefer the longer but simpler to read one. Were it mostly a
On 2010/12/10 17:34, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
I think optimizing for testability readability is the way to go here.
Especially considering the evidence that this code doesn't get tested
a whole lot
I can verify that both solutions work.
I'm OK with whichever solution you guys choose since
On 2010/12/10 18:46, Spencer Oliver wrote:
Not looked into it but why do we not just duplicate the existing
unregister event/timer functions - or are they broken aswell?
They (the target versions) don't appear to have the same problem. The
only difference I can see is that the
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Paul Richards paulr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2010/12/10 18:46, Spencer Oliver wrote:
Not looked into it but why do we not just duplicate the existing
unregister event/timer functions - or are they broken aswell?
They (the target versions) don't appear to have
Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
Now there's 3 versions to choose from :-)
It's not too late. The target versions seems nice and readable. And
correct, as far as I can see this late hour. I think the jtag version
should follow the behavior of these and only remove the first matching
handler. That
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
Now there's 3 versions to choose from :-)
It's not too late. The target versions seems nice and readable. And
correct, as far as I can see this late hour. I think the jtag version
should follow the
On 2010/12/11 8:20, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
I don't know. But, generally, if I _can_ register the same handler
twice, I'd expect each registration to require a separate unregister
call. The actual call sites would have to be inspected before changing
this behavior, of course. There shouldn't
Paul Richards wrote:
Peter, note that the double pointers are in the target list function
implementations (that would be copied), are you ok with this?
Afraid not. The alternative is quite straightforward, so I would
strongly prefer not going there.
Thanks!
//Peter
On 2010/12/11 13:00, Peter Stuge wrote:
Afraid not. The alternative is quite straightforward, so I would
strongly prefer not going there.
Thought as much :-)
Well, will leave it up to you guys to decide. I can test any new
patches required.
Cheers,
Paul
Peter Stuge wrote:
The alternative is quite straightforward, so I would
strongly prefer not going there.
Allow me to clarify that;
The alternative of rewriting to use no double pointers makes the code
much more straightforward, so I would strongly prefer not using any
double pointers. :)
Merged.
Thanks!
--
Øyvind Harboe
Can Zylin Consulting help on your project?
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 00
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex
JTAG debugger and flash programmer
___
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Merged.
So I should have complained more loudly. The double pointers are
horrible.
//Peter
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Merged.
So I should have complained more loudly. The double pointers are
horrible.
Ah, missed that. Well another patch is gladly accepted, meanwhile
it no longer crashes. Hopefully the fact that I
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
double pointers are horrible.
Ah, missed that. Well another patch is gladly accepted, meanwhile
it no longer crashes.
Fair. Two versions attached. One which makes the code two lines
longer and avoids double pointers, and a remix which uses only a
single double pointer
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
double pointers are horrible.
Ah, missed that. Well another patch is gladly accepted, meanwhile
it no longer crashes.
Fair. Two versions attached. One which makes the code two lines
longer and avoids
On 2010/12/08 16:27, Peter Stuge wrote:
The priv comparison logic is reversed.
Sorry, can't believe that snuck in, thanks.
The code is horrible. (Certainly not your fault!) Sorry if that's
offensive to the original author. The variable names do not help.
Will this work:
int
17 matches
Mail list logo
