On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:39 PM Takashi Yamamoto <yamam...@midokura.com.invalid> wrote: > > do you feel the returning-structure version less uglier?
Yes, returning-structure is a bad design in most case, but we can't change mallinfo prototype since it is defined by other OS: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/mallinfo.3.html > my feeling is the opposite. > after all, it's a matter of taste i guess. > I mean the code contained #ifdef/#endif is more uglier than other. there are many place conditioned by CAN_PASS_STRUCTS, mallinfo is just one of case. It's better to fix all places instead. > 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?
