On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Fabian Knittel <fabian.knit...@lettink.de> wrote: > Hi Alon, > > 2012/4/7 Alon Bar-Lev <alon.bar...@gmail.com>: >> Signed-off-by: Alon Bar-Lev <alon.bar...@gmail.com> >> --- >> src/openvpnserv/openvpnserv.c | 6 +++--- >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/openvpnserv/openvpnserv.c b/src/openvpnserv/openvpnserv.c >> index a9a9441..56f5a02 100755 >> --- a/src/openvpnserv/openvpnserv.c >> +++ b/src/openvpnserv/openvpnserv.c >> @@ -87,9 +87,9 @@ static HANDLE exit_event = NULL; >> /* >> * Message handling >> */ >> -#define M_INFO (0) // informational >> -#define M_SYSERR (MSG_FLAGS_ERROR|MSG_FLAGS_SYS_CODE) // error + system >> code >> -#define M_ERR (MSG_FLAGS_ERROR) // error >> +#define M_INFO (0) /* informational */ >> +#define M_SYSERR (MSG_FLAGS_ERROR|MSG_FLAGS_SYS_CODE) /* error + system >> code */ >> +#define M_ERR (MSG_FLAGS_ERROR) /* error */ >> >> /* write error to event log */ >> #define MSG(flags, ...) \ > > ACK. Doesn't hurt to be consistent. Are those the only remaining > C++-style comments?
there is one more place I chose to ignore, the service implementation is taken from Microsoft SDK sample, and has C++ comments... to remain close to the original I left this intact. > (Does someone know what C standard we aim at? "C++ comments" would be > just fine for C99.) Currently openvpn should support C89 based on supported configurations. Alon.
