On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:36:41PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > Phil Dibowitz wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 03:02:40PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> The attached patch adds a field to the remote info structure that tells > >> the code where to put the 4847 byte sequence in firmware images when > >> programming them. > > > > What's with the UINT32_MAX holder? There's already lots of un-filled-in bits > > in that table and clearly a mechanism for it: 0. > > I was avoiding the possibility of offset 0 being perfectly valid.
Yeah, I thought of that, but (1) that seems highly improbable from the data we've seen and (2) if that happens I'll change the "undefined" value for *everything* in the table all at once. Having different undefined values is really really ugly. So lets stick with 0 for now. -- Phil Dibowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source software and tech docs Insanity Palace of Metallica http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/ "Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk'; Never do it in 'awk' if 'sed' can handle it; Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job; Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient; Avoid using 'cat' whenever possible" -- Taylor's Laws of Programming
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ concordance-devel mailing list concordance-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/concordance-devel
