do you feel the returning-structure version less uglier? my feeling is the opposite. after all, it's a matter of taste i guess.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 7:22 PM Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But, should we support the aged compiler to make the code ugly? I > prefer to remove CAN_PASS_STRUCTS option and clean up the whole code > base. > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 2:41 PM Takashi Yamamoto > <yamam...@midokura.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > hi, > > > > depending on CONFIG_CAN_PASS_STRUCTS, > > mallinfo has a different prototype. > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_CAN_PASS_STRUCTS > > struct mallinfo mallinfo(void); > > #else > > int mallinfo(FAR struct mallinfo *info); > > #endif > > > > and we have a lot of #ifdef CONFIG_CAN_PASS_STRUCTS > > for this even in APPDIR. > > i'd like to suggest to simplify this by always using > > "int mallinfo(FAR struct mallinfo *info);" version. > > > > or, even "void mallinfo(FAR struct mallinfo *info);" because it > > doesn't return any errors. > > > > how do you think?
