On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 22:14 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote: > > > > changed all 'struct target_s' to 'target_t' to keep things consistent. > > I'd rather do away with all typedefs myself, except maybe > for "int" variants. Ditto that "*_t" convention. > > Anyone feel strongly pro-typedef?
I think typedefs have their place, but I agree they are BAD when used in header file declarations. Why? Because 'struct foo' can be forward-declared safely if it will be used only for pointers. In turn, this allows header files to be decoupled from one another. Go back and look at the changes that I started to decouple the headers and you will see me _removing_ typedefs to accomplish that mission. As a result, the changes in this patch result in the system being more tightly coupled than it really needs to be (and takes it in the opposite direction that it should be headed), so I am fairly strongly against applying it without first seeing the typedef changes removed. Other than that, it looks great, and I am really appreciating the work! Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
