On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 01:07:37PM +0100, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:46:47 +0600 > NRK <n...@disroot.org> wrote: > > Dear NRK, > > > Attached two small patches, one fixing the conversion specifier to > > `%u` for unsigned int and another one not for not assuming int == > > 32bits. > > > > These are more closer to pedantic cleanups rather than actual > > meaningful changes, but I noticed them while playing around on the > > codebase and thought I might send the patches anyways. Feel free to > > apply or reject them as you wish. > > @all: why not make a static compile-time-check on LENGTH(tags) and vary > the type accordingly? > > #if LENGTH(tags) < 8 > typedef tag_bitmap uint_least8_t; > #elif LENGTH(tags) < 16 > typedef tag_bitmap uint_least16_t; > #elif LENGTH(tags) < 32 > typedef tag_bitmap uint_least32_t; > #elif LENGTH(tags) < 64 > typedef tag_bitmap uint_least64_t; > #else > #error "tags-array too long" > #endif > > The *_least-types and #error are all standard C99. > > Accordingly you would have to redefine TAGMASK and change the type in > the Rule struct. > > This catches the best of both worlds, I think: It will marginally > improve compile times, allow maximum standard-conformant bitmask-based > tag-count and gives a much clearer error message when the tags-array is > too long. Thoughts? > > With best regards > > Laslo >
This is crazy, keep it simple -- Kind regards, Hiltjo
