Hi,
Am 14. Oktober 2016 12:30:25 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm :
>Hi Ludwig!
>
>On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:26:19PM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
>> Am 14. Oktober 2016 10:04:07 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm
>:
>> >On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:13:50AM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
>> >> In general it is safer to e
Hi Ludwig!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:26:19PM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
> Am 14. Oktober 2016 10:04:07 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm :
> >On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:13:50AM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
> >> In general it is safer to explicate the integer width. As RIOT is
> >> targeted at 32 bit arch
Hi,
Am 14. Oktober 2016 10:04:07 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm :
>Hi Ludwig!
>
>On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:13:50AM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
>> In general it is safer to explicate the integer width. As RIOT is
>targeted
>> at 32 bit architectures,
>
>I object!
With what exactly?
Cheers,
Ludwig
On 14-10-16 10:05, Oleg Hahm wrote:
Hi Kees!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:05:51AM +0200, Kees Bakker wrote:
On 13-10-16 22:42, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
On 10/13/2016 09:43 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
Does anybody object to adding this to the coding
conventions explicitly?
What about `size_t`?
+1 f
I agree with the general idea of this thread.
In my opinion, integer widths should only be specified in cases where the
developer needs to know the exact width, for example in network protocols
or when interfacing with hardware. In normal program logic the variables
should be using the general typ
Hi Kees!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:05:51AM +0200, Kees Bakker wrote:
> On 13-10-16 22:42, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
> > On 10/13/2016 09:43 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
> > > > > Does anybody object to adding this to the coding
> > > > > > > conventions explicitly?
> > > > > What about `size_t`?
> > > +1
Hi Ludwig!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:13:50AM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
> In general it is safer to explicate the integer width. As RIOT is targeted
> at 32 bit architectures,
I object!
Cheers,
Oleg
--
rio_dprintk (RIO_DEBUG_ROUTE, "LIES! DAMN LIES! %d LIES!\n",Lies);
linux-2.6.6/dri
Hi,
Am 14. Oktober 2016 08:05:51 MESZ, schrieb Kees Bakker :
>But I believe the question was more, in case of an unsigned type,
>should we use "unsigned int" or size_t. In that case I would go for
>size_t.
BTW: there is also the signed type `ssize_t`.
Cheers,
Ludwig
_
Hi,
Am 13. Oktober 2016 22:42:11 MESZ, schrieb Kaspar Schleiser
:
>Hi,
>
>On 10/13/2016 09:43 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
Does anybody object to adding this to the coding
>> conventions explicitly?
>>> > What about `size_t`?
>> +1 for size_t
>
>Well, any convention would need careful wording
